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. 18930 of 2008(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ANTONY P.K., PANAKKAL HOUSE, CHARIYAMTHURUTHU, VARAPPUZHA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL R.L.V COLLEGE OF MUSIC AND FINE ARTS, TRIPUNITHURA. 4. THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 18930 OF 2008 (C) ==================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner as Art Instructor (Junior Lecturer) in Painting in pursuance to Ext.P2. 2. Petitioner is a physically handicapped person having 40% disability. He was engaged under Rule 9(a) (i) of KS & SSR as Art Instructor for the period from 8/1/99 to 31/3/1999. At that time the qualification for the post of Art Instructor was pass in National Diploma in Fine Arts and the petitioner was qualified for the post. Subsequently, the Government issued Ext.P2 ordering re-employment and regularisation of physically handicapped persons like the petitioner who worked on provisional basis during the period from 15/8/98 to 15/8/99. In Ext.P2 itself, petitioner's name has been included as Sl.No.18 concerning Ernakulam District. 3. Though Ext.P2 was issued on 30/11/2007, follow up action was not taken and finally by Ext.P4 dated 17/1/2008, the 2nd respondent sought clarification from the 1st respondent regarding the eligibility of the petitioner for the benefit of Ext.P2. Such clarification was sought for the WPC 18930/08 :2 : reason that in terms of the proposed special rules, the qualification prescribed was post graduation with first class or second class. It appears that there was no response to Ex.P4. However, the Special Rules came into force w.e.f.19/3/2008 and in terms of the Special Rules, Post Graduation with First Class or Second Class was the prescribed qualification. On the basis that the petitioner did not possess the qualification as prescribed by the Special Rules, petitioner was not offered appointment as ordered in Ext.P2 and it was therefore that the writ petition was filed. 4. In the nature of the controversy that is raised, the only question that needs to be examined is whether the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Art Instructor in pursuance to Ext.P2, which has now been redesignated as Junior Lecturer. As already noticed, at the time when the petitioner was provisionally appointed during 1999, he had the then prescribed qualification. At the time when Ext.P2 order was issued by the Government on 30/11/2007 directing reemployment and regularisation of such physically handicapped provisional employees whose services were dispensed with, the petitioner was qualified. Being an eligible candidate, petitioner's name was also included in the list of beneficiaries of Ext.P2 at WPC 18930/08 :3 : Sl.No.18 concerning Ernakulam District. Therefore, at the time when reemployment and regularisation was ordered by the Government, the petitioner was qualified. If that be so, in my view, the entitlement of the petitioner to be appointed to the post of Art Instructor in pursuance to Ext.P2 has to be determined atleast as on 30/11/2007 when Ext.P2 was issued. If that be so, the fact that the Special Rules came subsequently w.e.f. 19/3/2008 or that there has been a change in the qualifications cannot result in depriving the petitioner the benefit of Ext.P2. 5. In my view, petitioner is entitled to be appointed following Ext.P2 order. Therefore, denial of appointment to the petitioner consequent on introduction of the Special Rules and change of qualification for the post of Art Instructor (Lecturer) cannot be justified. Writ petition therefore will stand allowed directing that the 2nd respondent shall offer appointment to the petitioner as Art Instructor in implementation of Ext.P2. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp