IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 6799 of 2007(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M. JACULINE, HSST (MALAYALAM), ST. ANTONY'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VALIATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SHANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE MANAGER, ST.ANTONY'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VALIATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MOHAMMED FOR R1,2,4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.6799/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT. 7.12.99 ISSUED BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IS IN SLP (CIVIL) NO.18236-18237/14. P2:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT. 25.8.2000. P3:- COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) 341/99/G.EDN. DT. 30.12.99. P4:- COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) 367/01/G.EDN. DT. 17.12.01. P5:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER WITH CORRECTED DT. OF 24.11.2000. P6;- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE DEO, TVPM. FOR RELIEVING THE PEITTIONER FROM THE POST OF H.S.A. MALAYALAM P7:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP. NO.17254/2001 DT. 27.9.2001. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ACED/85/1205/HSC/2002 DT. 29.6.02 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 25.5.06 IN OP. 22867/02. P10:- COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.5140/06/GEN. EDN. DT. 28.11.06 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P11:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER JUNE. 2006. P12:- COPY OF THE G.O.(MS 389/2000 EDN. DT. 25.11.2000. P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TRO/4/4635/06/HSE DT. 27.1.07. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 6799 OF 2007 (H) ==================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P8 and P10 orders. On 1/6/99, petitioner was appointed as an HSA in Malayalam. Ext.P1 in this writ petition is an interim order passed by the Apex Court regulating the appointment of HSST's on an adhoc basis. That was implemented by the Government as per Ext.P2. Subsequently, Exts. P3 and P4 orders were also issued by the Government in view of the Apex Court judgment dated 14/11/2000, in Dolichan's case and by Ext.P4, pass in SET Examination was made mandatory for the appointments made from 14/11/2000 onwards. 2. According to the petitioner, vacancy of HSST(Malayalam) arose in the 3rd respondent school w.e.f. 1/6/2000 and the petitioner was appointed by Ext.P5 w.e.f. 13/11/2000. However, it is contended that in order to deprive her of the benefit of exemption of SET qualification, the date of appointment was corrected and was made 24/11/2000 and accordingly, the matter was sent for approval. As a result of this correction, it is stated that the petitioner lost the benefit of exemption from acquiring the SET qualification which was available only to WPC 6799/07 :2 : appointments made till 14/11/2000. Finally her appointment was approved by Ext.P13 w.e.f. 14/11/2006, when she passed SET examination. It is in this background that the petitioner now claims that her appointment ought to be approved atleast w.e.f. 13/11/2000, giving her the benefit of exemption that was allowed by the government following the Supreme Court order in Dolichan's case and implemented by Ext.P4 order dated 17/12/2001. 3. The issue was considered by the Director of Higher Secondary Education in Ext.P8 and that order was challenged before this court in OP 22867/2002. The original petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment directing that the matter shall be reconsidered by the Government if the petitioner makes a representation in that behalf. Accordingly, the petitioner moved the Government and the Government reconsidered the matter and issued Ext.P10. In Ext.P10, though the claim of the petitioner stands negatived, but however, the petitioner's contention that her appointment was initially effective from 13/11/2000 has not been adverted to. As already noticed, the case of the petitioner is that her appointment was against the vacancy of HSST (Malayalam) which arose w.e.f. 1/6/2000 and her appointment is liable to be approved effective from 13/11/2000, WPC 6799/07 :3 : she being eligible for exemption from acquisition of SET qualification. 4. From Ext.P10, I notice that this issue has not been considered by the 1st respondent. It being a factual issue, necessarily an adjudication with reference to the appointment order and other related documents is called for. 5. In my view, since the whole claim of the petitioner depends upon her assertion that the effective date of her appointment is 13/11/2000, this certainly is a matter for the 1st respondent to consider. In order to enable the 1st respondent to reconsider the actual effective date of her appointment as above, I quash Ext.P10 and direct that the 1st respondent shall reconsider the matter on the production of a copy of this judgment along with a proper representation by the petitioner in this behalf. Thereupon the 1st respondent shall decide the matter with notice to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and complete the process as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment along with a representation. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp