IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 14991 of 2009(T) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- JAYAKRISHNA.K., W/O.RAJAGOPAL, AGED 32 YEARS, 'NIRMALYAM', KULASEKHARAM, KODUNGANOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM-13, AT PRESENT WORKING AS H.S.A (HINDI) AT GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MANKADA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-4. 2. SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-13. 3. DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-1. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC SMT. NISHA BOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3 & R4. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.14991/2009 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF M.A. DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY KERALA UNIVERSITY. EXT. P2 : COPY OF M.ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. EXT. P3 : COPY OF NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY UGC. EXT. P4 : COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD. 10.9.08 PUBLISHED BY PSC. EXT. P5 : COPY OF SERVICE RULES-1967 FOR SELECTION OF LECTURERS IN TRAINING COLLEGES FRAMED BY KERALA COLLEGIATE EDUCATION SERVICE RULES. EXT. P6 : COPY OF AMENDED KERALA COLLEGIATE EDUCATION SERVICE RULES - 1994. EXT. P7 : COPY OF PSC'S LETTER DTD. 23.3.09 REJECTING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR BY TRANSFER APPOINTMENT. EXT. P8 : COPY OF PSC'S LETTER DTD. 23.3.09 REJECTING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT APPOINTMENT. EXT. P9 : COPY OF ORDER DTD. 5.4.09 OF PSC REJECTING THE REQUEST OF PETITIONER. EXT. P10 : COPY OF RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY PSC FOR THE POST OF LECTURER IN HINDI IN TRAINING COLLEGES UNDER the KERALA COLLEGIATE EDUCATION SERVICE. EXT. P11 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE SECRETARY TO GOVT., GENERAL EDUCATION DEPT. EXT. P12 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 31.5.10 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO R4. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14991 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Rule 5(3) of Ext.P6 Rules as arbitrary and illegal. By Ext.P6, the Kerala Collegiate Education Service Rules 1994 has been brought into force. 2. It is a case where Rules have been prescribed for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Training Colleges. The petitioner's qualification, going by the documents produced in the writ petition, are M.A. Degree and M.Ed as well as acquisition of National Eligibility Test. It is stated that the petitioner has also passed the State Eligibility Test (SET) conducted by the Government of Kerala. The petitioner was working as H.S.A and in the meanwhile, notification has been published by the Public Service Commission and the petitioner submitted an application for selection to the post of Lecturer in Hindi in Training Colleges. Ext.P5 is the unamended Special Rules and Ext.P6 is the amended one. W.P.(C) No.14991/2009 2 3. In Ext.P6, for by transfer appointment, three years teaching experience in schools or colleges after acquisition of professional qualification was added along with NET. According to the petitioner, even though the petitioner was having 6½ years of total experience, the Commission took the stand that the petitioner is not having teaching experience of three years after acquiring M.Ed Degree and the application was rejected by Exts.P7 and P8. This led to the petitioner filing this writ petition. 4. The petitioner challenges the validity of the Rules by pointing out that the Rule is unworkable. It is pointed out that if three years of experience qualification for the post is insisted, as provided in the Rules, there will not be any qualified persons for appointment in the by transfer category. It is also pointed out that what is required as experience is only teaching experience and the petitioner has gained teaching experience in the post of H.S.A substantially and sufficiently. There is no difference in the methodology of teaching even in the post of Lecturer and therefore, the insistence of three years of experience after acquisition of professional qualification has no real basis. It is, W.P.(C) No.14991/2009 3 therefore, pointed out that in view of the insistence of the said experience qualification, persons from the by transfer category are unable to get the appointment and all the appointments are being made by direct recruitment. 5. The Government as well as the Public Service commission have filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is pointed out that the petitioner is not having the minimum of three years teaching experience after acquisition of professional qualification i.e. M.Ed. It is averred in paragraph 6 therein that the terms and conditions of service included in the Special Rules are framed by the Government, on the basis of the opinion obtained from the Universities, the Department and service organizations. Finally, in paragraph 7, it is averred as follows: “........The service after acquisition of the Professional Degree adds to the caliber of the teaching ability and hence the stipulation of three years teaching experience after the acquisition of Professional Degree is included........”. 6. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rule is unworkable, the learned Standing W.P.(C) No.14991/2009 4 Counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission and the learned Government Pleader submitted that the said contention cannot be accepted. 7. Herein what is provided in the Rule under challenge is the experience qualification of three years and it is not difficult for a person to achieve the said experience after the acquisition of professional qualification. Merely because the petitioner alleges that sufficient candidates are not available, the same is not a ground to contend that the Statutory Rule is arbitrary. It is well settled that individual hardship cannot lead to an inference that a Statutory Rule is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Apart from that, the post in question is the post of Lecturer in the Training Colleges, a higher post wherein they will have to teach persons who are studying for B.Ed and M.Ed. Therefore, evidently, the Government or the Rule making authority thought that after getting the professional qualification, experience qualification is also required. The wisdom of the Rule making authority in providing for such a qualification cannot therefore be doubted at all. The petitioner has not established W.P.(C) No.14991/2009 5 sufficient grounds to hold that the Rule is unworkable or arbitrary. Merely because the persons like the petitioner are not sufficiently qualified for appointment, that will not be a reason for this Court to interfere. 8. The Public Service Commission in the counter affidavit has pointed out that they have only followed the statutory Rules and that the service of the petitioner after November 2006 to 05.06.2008 is nearly of 18 months and she lacks experience qualification. For all these reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the matter. This writ petition is dismissed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp