IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28575 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- V.SMITHA, W/O. SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 31 YEARS, SARAWATHI NIVAS, GRAMAM ROAD, VADKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD-678683. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, L B S CENTRE FOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY NADAVANAM, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM-695036. ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SC, LBS CENTRE FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28575 OF 2010 (V) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that she passed MA in Hindi from Cochin University. She had also passed Siksha Visarad, Hindi from Allahabad. She appeared for SET examination conducted by the 2nd respondent in 2007. It is stated that though she passed the examination, certificate is not issued. It is with this grievance, the writ petition is filed. 2. Standing counsel appearing for the respondents, referring to the prospectus for the year 2007, submits that prospectus provided that those who appear for SET examination should have MA with B.Ed in any discipline or a qualification, which is recognised as equivalent to B.Ed. It is stated that at the time when the petitioner appeared, petitioner did not possess B.Ed and on the other hand she had only passed Siksha Visarad and she did not produce any document to show that the same was recognised as equivalent to B.Ed. It is stated that though the petitioner passed B.Ed subsequently in 2009, as at the time when the petitioner appeared for the examination, she had not passed WPC No. 28575/10 :2 : B.Ed, she is not entitled to be issued SET examination certificate. 3. Going by the prospectus for the year 2007, only those having passed Graduate Degree with B.Ed or its equivalent could have appeared for the SET examination. Admittedly, petitioner did not satisfy this condition at the time when she appeared for the examination. If that be so, I cannot find fault with the 2nd respondent for not having issued SET examination certificate, even if the petitioner passed the B.Ed subsequently in 2009. However, it is made clear that if as claimed by the petitioner, Siksha Visarad possessed by the petitioner in 2007 was a qualification which was declared equivalent to B.Ed, it will be open to the petitioner to produce such equivalency certificate before the 2nd respondent and seek issuance of the SET certificate, in which event, appropriate orders dealing with the claim will be passed. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp