IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 494 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11238/2008 Dated 18/11/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------ SUSAN V. PAUL, HSA (ENGLISH), STANDARD POTTERY WORKS HIGH SCHOOL, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALUVA. 3. THE MANAGER, STANDARD POTTERY WORKS HIGH SCHOOL, ALUVA. GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.NOBLE MATHEW. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------- W.A. No. 494 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11238/2008. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The appellant was appointed in the 3rd respondent's school as H.S.A.(English) with effect from 2.6.2003. At the relevant time, she was having degree in Psychology and B.Ed in English. Later, the petitioner acquired M.A. English qualification in December, 2006, as evident from Ext.P6. The petitioner's appointment was not approved by the D.E.O, as per Ext.P1 order dated 28.7.2003. Though the Manager moved the Government by filing a representation against it, the same was rejected by Ext.P2 order dated 8.12.2003. A further revision was attempted before the Government producing certain orders passed by the Government in similar cases. The said revision was dismissed by Ext.P5. The orders relied on by the petitioner before the Government were Exts.P3 and P4. The matter was W.A. No.494/2009 2 again reconsidered by the Government as per the direction of this Court and the petitioner/appellant's claim was again rejected by Ext.P9. The writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P1, P2, P5 and P9. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, but observed that the Manager can appoint the petitioner as H.S.A.(English) with effect from the date he acquired the M.A English qualification. Based on that observation, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that she has been appointed as HSA (English) with effect from 1.6.2007 and the said appointment was approved also. 3. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge for not acting upon the precedent set by the Government, while issuing Exts.P3 and P4. 4. We notice that the cases dealt with under Exts.P3 and P4 were not of unqualified teachers. The teachers concerned were qualified for the post, in which, they were accommodated. But, there was lack of vacancy, having regard to the subject requirement. In this case, the petitioner does not have the W.A. No.494/2009 3 qualification for the post of H.S.A. (English). Therefore, the Government took the view that Exts.P3 and P4 cannot be pressed into service to advance her case. Since the petitioner is not qualified for post, we find nothing wrong with the decision of the authorities or of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps