IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 15949 of 2007(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- JEETU JOHN, THACHUTHARA HOUSE, VADUTHALA P.O., KOCHI-682 023. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MENON RESPONDENT: --------------- LAL BAHUDUR SASTRI CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B. SURESH KUMAR SC, LBS CENTRE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON 26/03/2008, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO. 15949/2008-W A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM L.B.S. CENTRE FOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY DATED 18.04.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE RELEVANT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT ORDER FIXING QUALIFICATION FOR B.Ed. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF G.O. (MS) NO.565/95/Edn. DATED 30.11.1995. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF G.O. RT. 3307/05/G, Edn. DATED 4.7.2005. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DIRECTOR, STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATION RESEARCH & TRAINING DATED 3.1.1996. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 22.1.1996 FROM DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION TO SECRETARY TO GOVT. DATED 22.1.96. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS PUBLISHED BY THE CENTRE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT, DATED 17/02/2007. // T R U E C O P Y // PA TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 15949 OF 2007 - W = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayers in this writ petition are for quashing Ext. P1 and to direct the respondent to admit the petitioner for SET Examination. 2. The facts of the case are that the Government of Kerala authorised the respondent to conduct State Eligibility Test in accordance with the scheme approved by the Government. Accordingly, the respondent invited applications and Ext. R1 is the prospectus published on 17.2.2007. Paragraph 5.1 of the prospectus provided that the candidates who have acquired Masters Degree in the concerned subject in II class, with not less than 50% marks and B.Ed. Degree in any discipline from any one of the Universities in Kerala or from any other University recognized as equivalent thereto, are eligible to apply for the SET 2007. It was provided in paragraph 5.7 of the prospectus that those who have acquired qualifications from Universities outside the State should W.P.(C) No.15949/07 - 2 - also obtain and furnish Certificates of Equivalency or Recognition issued by any one of the Universities in Kerala. Petitioner contends that she has passed Sikshavisarad examination (Hindi) of Hindi Sahithya Sammelan, Allahabad having studied for the course at Hindi Prachar Kendra, Kodungalloor. According to her, the application made in response to Ext. R1 prospectus was declined to be considered for the reason that the petitioner's qualification cannot be considered as equivalent to B.Ed. 3. Petitioner submits that as per Ext. P2 Govt. Order, specifying method of appointment and qualification of HSAs for Language Teachers B.Ed. was not necessary. It is also stated that as per Ext. P3 Govt. Order, the petitioner is qualified to be a Language Teacher. Petitioner submits that Exts. P4 and P5 Govt. Orders were issued admitting students similarly situated students for SET examination. Thus, what the petitioner contends is that qualification of Hindi Sikshavisarad possessed by her is equivalent to B.Ed. degree and therefore the rejection of her candidature by Ext. P1 is erroneous in law. 4. The respondent has stated in the counter affidavit that W.P.(C) No.15949/07 - 3 - going by Ext. R1 prospectus one should be a post-graduate with B.Ed, and that candidates who have acquired the qualification from Universities outside the State, should obtain and furnish certificates of equivalency or recognition issued by any one of the Universities in Kerala. It is contended that the petitioner had not produced an equivalency certificate as contemplated in Ext. R1 prospectus. The respondent would accept the contention of the petitioner that by Ext. P2 Govt. Order, Language Teachers are exempted from acquiring B.Ed., but according to the respondent, since the petitioner does not have Language Teachers Training certificate, the exemption provided in Ext. P2 is irrelevant in so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is also stated that Exts. P4 and P5 are orders of exemption issued in the individual cases mentioned therein and as it does not lay down any general rule, these orders cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner. What is mainly argued before me is about the absence of Equivalency Certificate as provided in paragraph 5.7 of Ext. R1 prospectus. 5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the Government Orders that have been referred to above, petitioner is W.P.(C) No.15949/07 - 4 - entitled to appear in the SET examination. It is also contended on the strength of Exts. P4 and P5, that since benefit similar to what is sought for in this writ petition has been granted, it is not permissible to deny the same benefit to the petitioner. 6. As already noticed, Ext. R1 is the prospectus issued by the respondent, which, inter alia, provides the eligibility criterion that is to be satisfied by the candidates. It is admitted by the petitioner that what she acquired is Hindi Sikshavisarad, undergoing a course of study at the Hindi Prachar Kendra, Kodungalloor. Irrespective of whether there is any substance in the claim of the petitioner that the qualification possessed by her is equivalent to B.Ed., the fact remains that Ext. R1 prospectus itself provides that in case the qualification of a candidate is from an outside University, the candidate should produce certificate of equivalency or recognition issued from any one of the Universities in Kerala. Petitioner has no case that such a certificate was produced by her. Thus the production of an equivalency certificate which is a condition precedent for the candidature of the petitioner has not been complied with. If that be so, the application made by her is invalid W.P.(C) No.15949/07 - 5 - for that reason itself. 7. Petitioner contended that if others have been granted benefit of exemption by Exts. P4 and P5, she being a similarly situated candidate should not have been discriminated. I am not in a position to appreciate this contention either. Article 14 which prohibits discrimination, can only be a positive concept and cannot made use of to claim parity on the basis of an erroneous order. Petitioner has not shown to me any provision permitting relaxation of the requirements of Ext. R1. If there is no provision enabling relaxation, the petitioner will have to comply with the requirements of Ext. R1, without any claim for exemption. In this case, admittedly the petitioner has not produced the equivalency certificate and if that be so, petitioner is ineligible and even if it is true that inadmissible benefit has been granted to certain candidates by Exts. P4 and P5, that is no reason for this Court to accept that as a precedent and issue a writ of mandamus as sought in this writ petition. 8. Petitioner contended that language teachers are entitled to be exempted from having B.Ed., relying on Ext. P2 Govt. Order. In W.P.(C) No.15949/07 - 6 - any case unless the prospectus for SET Exam provides that those with qualification prescribed by the petitioner are eligible, petitioner cannot claim eligibility to appear in the examination. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to any reliefs. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-