IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10796 of 2009(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ B.T.SHEEBA,W/O. M.KESARI DHAS, AGED 35 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (HINDI) EVAN'S HIGH SCHOOL, PARASSALA TRIVANDRUM DISRICT - 695 502. BY ADVS. MR.V.A.MUHAMMED, MR.K.E.HAMZA. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARAIT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA, TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE MANAGER, EVANS HIGH SCHOOL, PARASSALA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT - 695 502. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.Ravindran, J. ================== W.P.(C) No.10796 of 2009 ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard Sri. V.A.Muhammed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. A.J.Varghese, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 2. The petitioner is presently working as H.S.A. (Hindi) in Evan's High School, Parassala managed by the fifth respondent. She was first appointed as H.S.A. in the fifth respondent's school in a leave vacancy for the period from 7.10.1998 to 10.12.1998. That appointment was approved. She was again appointed in another leave vacancy for the period from 11.12.1998 to 11.12.1999. That appointment was also approved. It appears, the petitioner did not have any of the training qualifications prescribed in Rule 2(2)(iv) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules, hereinafter referred to as the “KER” for short, for appointment to the post of H.S.A. (Hindi). Though she had passed Pracharak Diploma from Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, as per the provisions contained in Rule 2(2)(iv) of Chapter XXXII of the KER, Pracharak Diploma of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha is recognised as a training qualification only upto and including the academic year 1969-70. Overlooking this aspect, the petitioner's WP(C) 10796/09 -: 2 :- appointment in the leave vacancies was approved. Later, the petitioner was appointed as H.S.A. (Hindi) against a long leave vacancy with effect from 5.6.2000 as per Ext.P3 order dated 5.6.2000. The District Educational Officer declined to approve the said appointment by Ext.P4 order passed on 3.4.2001 on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the required training qualification and that Pracharak Diploma of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, which she had passed during the academic year 1995-96 is not adequate training qualification. The Manager carried the matter in appeal. By Ext.P5 order passed on 27.3.2002 the appeal was rejected. The petitioner thereupon moved the Director of Public Instruction. By Ext.P6 order passed on 23.9.2002, the Director of Public Instruction rejected the revision petition. The petitioner thereupon moved the Government. By Ext.P7 order passed on 21.2.2005, the Government ordered as follows: “Having considered the case in details taking a very lenient view, Government hereby order to approve the appointment of Smt. B.T.Sheeba as H.S.A. (Hindi), Evan's High School, Parassala, Thiruvananthapuram with effect from 5.6.2000 in relaxation of rules, subject to the following conditions: I. She will acquire one of the qualifications prescribed for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi) within a period of 3 years from the date of issue of this order. II. She will be paid only basic pay fixed for the post as her salary with effect from 5.6.2000 treating her as under qualified till she acquires any of the qualifications WP(C) 10796/09 -: 3 :- prescribed for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi). The directions in the judgment read as 3rd paper above is thus complied with.” 3. Ext.P7 order discloses that though the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed as H.S.A. (Hindi), taking a lenient view, the Government directed the educational authorities to approve her appointment as H.S.A. (Hindi) with effect from 5.6.2000 in relaxation of the rules subject to the condition that she should acquire one of the training qualifications prescribed for the post of H.S.A. within a period of three years from the date of issue of the order. It was also stated that she will be paid only the basic pay fixed for the post as salary with effect from 5.6.2000 treating her as under qualified till she acquires any of the training qualifications prescribed for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi). The petitioner thereafter underwent the diploma course in Hindi Teachers' Training and completed it during the academic year 2007. The result of the examination was published on 31.10.2007. The petitioner thereafter moved the Government in Ext.P11 representation dated 31.3.2008 requesting the Government to treat the period of service from 5.6.2000 to 31.10.2007 for the purpose of grant of notional increments and grade promotions. She also filed W.P.(C) No.29163 of 2008 in this Court. By Ext.P12 judgment delivered on 3.10.2008, this Court directed the Government to consider Ext.P11 representation and pass orders thereon. As directed by this Court, the Secretary to Government, General Education Department heard the petitioner on 2.1.2009. During the WP(C) 10796/09 -: 4 :- hearing, the petitioner submitted Ext.P13 written submission. By Ext.P14 order passed on 11.3.2009 the Government rejected the petitioner's request in Ext.P11 (which was marked as Ext.P10 in W.P.(C) No.29163 of 2008). Ext.P14 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 4. The petitioner contends that the Government ought to have granted to the petitioner the benefit of Ext.P10 Government order wherein the Government had ordered that the service rendered by the untrained school teachers will be reckoned for notional increments with monetary benefit from the date of acquisition of the training qualification. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that what the petitioner had asked for in Ext.P11 was grant of increments on notional basis during period from 5.6.2000 to 31.10.2007 and fixation of pay on that basis with effect from 1.11.2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Government would not in any way be affected if such request is entertained for the reason that the petitioner was drawing only basic pay as salary during the said period. I am afraid, there is a little or no merit in the said contention. The petitioner was not qualified to be appointed as H.S.A. when she was first appointed from 7.10.1998 to 10.12.1998. When she was reappointed on 5.6.2000 against a regular vacancy, she did not admittedly possess any of the training qualifications prescribed in Chapter XXXII of the KER. The appointment of the petitioner was therefore liable to be rejected. However, taking a lenient view, the Government directed the educational WP(C) 10796/09 -: 5 :- officers to approve her appointment subject to the two conditions set out in Ext.P7. Ext.P7 order was passed in relaxation of the rules. It was only because of the two conditions stipulated in Ext.P7 that the Government directed the educational officers to approve the petitioner's appointment. On the strength of Ext.P7, the petitioner continued in service and also acquired the prescribed qualifications. The claim of the petitioner, is in my opinion grossly unjust. The Government permitted her to continue in service as an unqualified hand. One of the condition for such continuance was that she will be paid only basic pay as her salary till she acquires any of the prescribed training qualifications. The petitioner acquired the training qualification only on 31.10.2007. Therefore, during the period from 5.6.2000 to 31.10.2007 on the terms of Ext.P7, she was eligible only to draw the basic pay as her salary. If the claim of the petitioner in Ext.P11 is accepted, she will start drawing higher emoluments with effect from 1.11.2007 as if she was entitled to allowances and increments during the period from 5.6.2000 to 31.10.2007. This would result in stepping up of her salary with grade promotions and also the benefit of pay revisions. The petitioner relies on Ext.P10 to contend that similar benefits are extended to the Government school teachers. Ext.P10 states that untrained service and training period of untrained teachers appointed after 26.2.1965 in Government schools will be reckoned for notional increments with monetary benefit from the date of acquiring training qualification. WP(C) 10796/09 -: 6 :- Chapter XXXI of the KER came into force on 5.12.1972. Therefore, Ext.P10 cannot govern aided school teachers who are governed by Chapter XXXI of the KER. The claim founded on Ext.P10 is in my opinion plainly untenable. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in this Writ Petition. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess