IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 16189 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SMT.TEJI POULOSE, W/O.SHAJI THOMAS, AGED 39 YEARS, HSST (SOCIOLOGY), MAR BASIL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOTHAMANGALAM, RESIDING AT CHOLLAMBEL HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MOHAMMED FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.16189/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.C2/3036/HSE/99 DT 2.8.99 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ACD.A1/20164/HSE/2001 DT 22.10.2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.102/04/GI.EDN DT 7.1.2004. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.103/05/G.ED DT 5.1.2005. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT 14.7.1994. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED DT 21.8.2000. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY IGNOU DT 15.3.2007. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST ISSUED BY IGNOU DT. 29.11.2007. EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD. 14.12.2007. EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5/14337/07 DT 29.3.2008. EXT.P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 10.12.2007 IN WP NO.11931/07. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 16189 OF 2008 (B) ==================== Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P10, by which the proposal for regularisation of the appointment of the petitioner as HSST (Sociology) from the date of her appointment was rejected by the 3rd respondent. Four reasons are stated in Ext.P10 for rejection and they are extracted below for reference. a) Not produced any order extending the approval beyond 30.12.04. b) Not produced the course certificate to ascertain whether the B.Ed was acquired after a regular course of study. c) Original Degree Certificate not seen produced. d) B.Ed from IGNOU has not been accepted by the Higher Secondary Education till the time for the appointment of the HSST. 2. On facts, it is seen that by order dated 17/9/98, petitioner was appointed as HSST(Sociology). By Ext.P1, conditional approval was granted, which required the petitioner to acquire B.Ed within 3 years. While so, the post was upgraded by Ext.P2 order as HSST Full time again on condition that the petitioner should acquire B.Ed before 30/12/2004. Subsequently, Ext.P3 order was issued by the Government extending time for acquisition of B.Ed in all such cases till 1/11/2006. Among the WPC 16189/08 :2 : beneficiaries of Ext.P3, petitioner's name was included at Sl.No.46. Again the Government issued Ext.P4, ordering that time will stand extended until the publication of results of B.Ed course which persons like the petitioner were then undergoing. Petitioner submits that she had joined for B.Ed in the Indira Gandhi National Open University and that she acquired B.Ed and Exts.P7 and 8 are the certificates issued. It is stated that based on Exts. P7 and P8, the Manager forwarded proposals for regularising her appointment from the date of her initial appointment. This was considered by the 3rd respondent and by Ext.P10, the same was rejected for reasons stated earlier. This is the background in which the writ petition is filed. 3. Among the four reasons, the main reason that is stated is that the B.Ed from IGNOU has not been accepted as a recognised qualification. This very issue has been considered by this Court in WP(C) No.11931/07 and that too in the context of the Special Rules. In the light of Ext.P11 judgment, this contention cannot be accepted. The other objection is that the Manager had not produced any order extending the approval beyond 30/12/2004. Though this is factually correct, yet fact remains that the petitioner was eligible for the benefit of extension granted by Exts. P3 and P4. Therefore, the fault on the part of the Manager in getting the period of WPC 16189/08 :3 : approval in Ext.P2 not extended, should not in my view, stand in the way of the petitioner getting her service regularised, if she is otherwise eligible for the same. 4. The fact that the petitioner's course was not a regular course is not in dispute. But, however in the light of Ext.P11 judgment endorsing her eligibility, I do not think the objection at Sl.No.(b) is of any substance. Non production of original Degree Certificate is yet another objection that is raised at Sl.No.(c). Counsel for the petitioner, referring to Ext.P7 states that this certificate was produced before Ext.P10 order was passed, but there is nothing on record to indicate the correctness of the same. Therefore, this certificate has to be produced. 5. Now that I have held that objection at (a), (b) and (d) be unsustainable, I direct that the 3rd respondent shall reconsider the matter on the Manager resubmitting the proposal enclosing original of Ext.P7 Degree Certificate. Needless to say that once orders are passed, consequential benefits will also be released to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp