IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 30071 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. G.RETNASWAMI, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (COMMERCE), LMS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOL, CHEMBUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. T.MOHAN, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (COMMERCE), POPE PIUS XI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL , BHARANIKAVU, KATTANAM, ALAPPUZHA. 3. C.J.RAMOLA JANCY, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (COMMERCE), ST.MARY'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. 4. T.HELEN PUSHPA RATHI, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (COMMERCE), ST. MARY'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN SRI.V.V.MATHEW SRI.R.SRINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 . 3. MANAGER, LMS CORPORATE MANAGEMENT,LMS SCHOOLS, LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033 WP(C).No. 30071 of 2008(E) 4. MANAGER, MSC SCHOOL, MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.' BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T. MUHAMOOD FOR R1-R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 30071 of 2008 -E ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.B.Raghunathan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.T.T.Muhamood, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Though respondents 3 and 4 have been served, there is no appearance on their behalf when the case was called on today. 2. The petitioner No.4 is presently working as HSST (Commerce) under the fourth respondent's school. The petitioners at the time they were appointed as HSST passed the B.Ed degree examination through the correspondence course from Madurai Kamaraj University. However their appointments were approved subject to the condition that they should obtain B.Ed degree within five years from the date of appointment and the probation will be declared only after passing the B.Ed degree. Such a stipulation was made on the presumption that B.Ed degree obtained by the petitioners through the correspondence course is not adequate for the purpose of appointment to the post of HSST. But the petitioners did not possess the B.Ed degree course within the time stipulated. W.P(C) No. 30071 of 2008 -E 2 The petitioners thereupon moved the Director of Higher Secondary Education seeking exemption to pass B.Ed degree. The Director of Higher Secondary Education thereupon passed Ext.P22 order dated 25.9.2008 holding that as B.Ed degree possessed by the petitioners is not adequate and they have not possessed the B.Ed degree within the period of five years stipulated in the orders granting approval, they are not entitled to continue in service as HSST. The Director of Higher Secondary Education has also directed to terminate the service of the petitioners. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P22 and seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in service as HSST. 3. The fact that the petitioners possessed all other qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of HSST is not in dispute. The only dispute centered on account of the efficacy of the degree obtained from Madurai Kamaraj University through the correspondence course. The counsel for the petitioner contends relying on the decision of this Court in Sujakumari V. State of Kerala (2006(1) KLT 846) that in the absence of the stipulation in the Government order which governed appointment till W.P(C) No. 30071 of 2008 -E 3 Rule 33 Part I KSR was introduced, the B.Ed degree acquired through correspondence course, cannot be recognized as adequate qualification for appointment to the post of HSST. 4. The decision in Mohanan Nair V. State of Kerala 1994(2) KLT 537, which was approved by the Division Bench in Sujakumari Vs. State of Kerala, (supra) the learned Single Judge of this Court interpreting the rules governing appointment to the post of HSST held that no distinction can be drawn between degrees obtained after undergoing the regular classes and those obtained by correspondence course. The learned Single Judge in Mohanan Nair V. State of Kerala (supra) was interpreting the Government order governing appointment to the post of HSST. In my considered opinion the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Mohanan Nair Vs. State of Kerala (1994(2) KLT 537) which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Sujakumari V. State of Kerala (2006(1) KLT 846) is applicable to the facts of this case. In the result the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P22 is quashed and the respondents are directed to approve the appointment of the petitioners as HSST and disburse the salary and allowances without insisting that they shall pass the B.Ed degree in the concerned W.P(C) No. 30071 of 2008 -E 4 subject after undergoing regular classes. Final orders in the matter shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Payment of monetary benefits will be made within two months thereafter. P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE ab