IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 25247 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ANISH.V.P., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.V.S.PAPPU, R/AT VALLAKKADAVIL, VELLARIKUNDU P.O., PARAPPA VIA, KASARAGOD-671 533. 2. SREELATHA KUMARI.S, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.KAMALAKARAN NAIR, R/AT KUNNATH HOUSE, KARIMPUZHA P.O., SREEKRISHNAPURAM VIA, PALAKKAD-679 513. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. R1 BY G.P. SHRI VIJULAL ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 2087 OF 2011 WPC NO. 18174 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC 25247/2010 EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUE DBY THE PSC DT.30.6.2010 EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF GO DATED 22.11.1979 EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT.31.7.2010 EXT.P3(A)-TRUE COPY OF B.ED.PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE OF FIRST PETITIONERS EXT.P3(B)-TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF DIPLOMA FOR PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS OF VISUALLY HANDICAPPED OF THE FIRST PETITIONERS EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF APPLICATIION DATED 31.7.2010 SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONERS EXT.P4(A)-TRUE COPY OF B.A. DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF 2ND PETITIONERS EXT.P4(B)-TRUE COPY OF B.ED. PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE EXT.P4(C)-TRUE COPY OF ASTER OF ARTS CERTIFICATE OF 2ND PETITINER EXT.R4(D)-TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF DIPLOMA FOR PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS OF VISUALLY HANDICAPPED EXT.P5-TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.31.7.2010 BEFORE R1 EXT.P6-TRUE COPY OF GO DATED 4.6.2002 // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos.25247/2010-E, 2087/2011-I & 18174/2011-V - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT All these writ petitions are filed by candidates who have applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers (Visually impaired) in upper primary classes, by selection through Public Service Commission. The facts of the case narrated those detailed in W.P.(C) No.2087/2011. Identical reliefs are sought for in all these writ petitions. 2. Ext.P1 is the notification issued by the Public Service Commission. Ext.P2 is the Government Order fixing the qualification and method of appointment for the post of Head Masters and Assistant Teachers in the special schools for physically handicapped, etc. 3. All the petitioners in various writ petitions are B.Ed. holders and are not having T.T.C. qualification which is prescribed as per the notification. The qualification prescribed under clause 7 of Ext.P1 are: (1) Pass in SSLC or its equivalent; (2) T.T.C.; and (3) Lower Certificate/Junior Diploma in Teaching the Blind. Their applications have been rejected, which are under challenge these writ petitions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the wpc 2087/2011, etc. 2 qualification B.Ed. is equivalent and sufficient for appointment in the light of Ext.P10 Government Order. It is pointed out that as far as the appointments of UPSA in the Government schools are concerned, B.Ed. is stated as equivalent qualification for T.T.C. and the same will apply in the case of the petitioners, especially in the light of the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of this court in State of Kerala v. M. Geetha (ILR 2000 (2) Ker. 682). Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Manager v. Rajithakumari (2001 (2) KLT 205), another decision of a learned Single Judge in Saleena v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 437 and that of a Full Bench of this Court in S.N.D.P. L.P. School v. Roy (2006 (4) KLT 497 – FB). 5. The contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission is that the petitioners are lacking the qualification notified in Ext.P1. The qualification prescribed by the Government alone have been prescribed in the notification. The said qualification has been prescribed by the Government in consultation with the Public Service Commission. When the rule making authority prescribes a particular qualification the same will have to be fulfilled. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Kodoth Sreedharan wpc 2087/2011, etc. 3 submitted that in M. Geetha's case (ILR 2000 (2) Ker 682) this Court considered the question whether B.Ed. holders are eligible to apply for the post of LPSA/UPSA. The Government revised the qualification for appointment of teachers in Government schools through Public Service Commission and as per the revised qualifications the possession of B.Ed. degree is made equivalent and sufficient for TTC for such appointments, as evident from Exts.P10 and P10(a). 7. It is further pointed out that 50% of the post of Headmasters in special schools have to be filled up by promotion. Going by the qualification prescribed for the post of Headmaster, degree and LT/BT/B.Ed. have been specified. Therefore, unless persons having the same qualification are appointed as Assistant Teachers, the quota of promotion cannot be filled up. It is therefore pointed out that the same also justifies the plea raised by the petitioners. 8. Ext.P10 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners evidently applies to qualification for the post of LPSA/UPSA in Government schools and it will not apply to the prescription of qualification in Ext.P2, as no such provision has been made in Ext.P1 to vary the qualification prescribed therein. Therefore, the provision for treating B.Ed. holders in Ext.P10 for appointment to UPSA in Government schools alone, wpc 2087/2011, etc. 4 will not help the petitioners. 9. Then the question is whether the petitioners are entitled to succeed in the light of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In Rajithakumari's case (2001 (2) KLT 205) the Division Bench has considered the question regarding the qualification of LPSA. Therein, the claimant was a B.Ed. holder. The question turned on the interpretation of Rule 4-A of Chapter XXXI of K.E.R. Rule 4-A provides that “notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 the Educational officer shall be competent to approve appointments of candidates possessing higher qualifications provided they have the training qualification stipulated in the said sub rule.” The argument was that B.Ed. is also a training qualification which would be sufficient for appointment as LPSA. It is in that context the Division Bench held in favour of the petitioner therein. The issue was considered in the light of the claim raised under Rule 51-A of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. The position herein is totally different and therefore the said judgment will not apply to the facts of this case. 10. In Roy's case (2006 (4) KLT 497 - FB) the Full Bench was considering Rule 45 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. which provides for promotion to the post of Headmaster in primary schools. Therein, the words wpc 2087/2011, etc. 5 “training qualifications approved by the Government of Kerala” contained in the Rules came up for interpretation. The Bench was of the view that B.Ed. which is a training qualification, falls within the category of approved qualification. That dictum, obviously, cannot apply to the facts of this case. Different rules can provide for various methods and by executive orders also, the Government can modify the provisions of earlier orders. But unless and until the provisions of Ext.P2 are amended providing for B.Ed. as an equivalent qualification, the petitioners cannot succeed. 11. The decision in Saleena's case (2008 (1) KLT 437) was one regarding the interpretation of Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. and the same cannot have any application to the facts of this case. 12. What is important is the qualification prescribed by the appointing authority. Even Rule 10(a)(ii) of KS & SSR relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be of any help, as rightly pointed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission. The said rule can have application only if equivalent qualifications are provided. Herein, what is relied upon is the qualification for appointment of Teachers in Government schools through the Public Service Commission, viz. Ext.P10. Unless and until the qualification prescribed in Ext.P2 with regard to special schools are amended and B.Ed. is provided as an equivalent wpc 2087/2011, etc. 6 qualification, the petitioners cannot contend for the position that they are qualified for appointment. It is entirely within the realm of the appointing authority itself, viz. the Government, to provide the qualifications and the Commission will be bound only to accept the applications of candidates who fulfil the said qualification. For all these reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/