IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 28554 of 2007(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JOSEPH XAVIER N, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (COMMERCE)ST.JOHNS MODEL HSS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT BLISS BUILDING, KOTTAMUKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY GENERL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CORRESPONDENT, MSC SCHOOLS, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 28554/07. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT MEMO DTD.14.2000 BY R3. P2. COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DTD.4.11.2000 BY R3 TO R2. P3. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.27.11.2002 BY R2. P4. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATES IN RESPECT OF M.PHIL AND B.ED. DEGREES. P5. COPY OF THE REQUEST TO R2. P6. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.17.7.65. P7. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.2.8.07 BY R2. P8. COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD.20.9.07 BEFORE R2. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.28554 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Higher Secondary School Teacher under the 3rd respondent. He has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the decision of the 2nd respondent to terminate the service of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not have a B.Ed. Degree obtained through a regular course of study. The petitioner has obtained a B.Ed. Degree from Annamalai University through correspondence course and he is also having M.Phil. from Madras University. The petitioner contends that since this court has, in the decision in State of Kerala v. Suja Kumari [2006 (1) KLT 846], held that B.Ed. Degree obtained through correspondence course is sufficient to approve the appointment made to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher, his appointment is liable to be regularised. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order calling for the records relating to exhibit P7 and to quash the same. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to approve the P1 appointment made by the 3rd respondent without any conditions. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to consider P8 request before proceeding further with the P7 communication. w.p.c.28554/07 2 iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to continue in service and to disburse his pay and allowances untrammeled by P7 communication.” 2. The learned Government Pleader with the support of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent submits that as per the qualifications prescribed in Chapter XXXII of the KER, the qualifications prescribed for a Higher Secondary School Teacher includes B.Ed. Degree in the concerned subject acquired after a regular course of study from any of the Universities of Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by the Universities in Kerala. The qualification obtained by the petitioner through a correspondence course being not one acquired after a regular course of study is not sufficient qualification for the post. As such, he is bound to obtain B.Ed. through a regular course of study for becoming eligible for regularisation. The learned Government Pleader points out that the petitioner was provisionally given approval on the basis of the declaration submitted by him to the effect that the petitioner would obtain B.Ed. Degree and therefore, the petitioner is bound to obtain B.Ed. Degree as undertaken by him. She stresses that the petitioner submitted that declaration when he already had the B.Ed. degree through w.p.c.28554/07 3 correspondence course. The learned Government Pleader relies on the decision in Mujeeb Rahman v. State of Kerala [2005 (1) KLT 680) which would draw a distinction between degree obtained through distance education and obtained through regular course of study. According to her, when the Rules specifically prescribe that the B.Ed. Degree shall be the one obtained through regular course of study, then the B.Ed. Degree through correspondence course is expressly excluded and, as such, the petitioner's qualification cannot be regarded as valid qualification as per Chapter XXXII of the KER. 3. In answer to the same, the counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P3 order of provisional approval did not contain any direction that the approval is subject to the petitioner obtaining B.Ed. qualification. He submits that the petitioner was appointed on 4.11.2000, ie., prior to the introduction of Chapter XXXII of the KER, and therefore, even assuming that the qualification prescribed in Chapter XXXII requires B.Ed. Degree after undergoing a regular course of study, the same cannot be applied to the petitioner and his case is squarely covered by the decision in Suja Kumari's case (supra). w.p.c.28554/07 4 4. After considering the arguments on both sides, I am not inclined to take a technical view in this case to accept the contentions of the Government Pleader. At the time of appointment of the petitioner, the qualification prescribed was not as per Chapter XXXII, which came into force only with effect from 12.11.2001. At the relevant time, admittedly the Government orders applicable did not prescribe that the qualification shall be after a regular course of study which was included only in Chapter XXXII. Considering the qualifications prescribed in those Government orders, in Suja Kumari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this court held that B.Ed. degree obtained through correspondence course is sufficient qualification for appointment to the post of higher secondary school teachers. In that decision in paragraph 10, this court has further held thus: “10. The petitioners concerned had been working as Higher Secondary School Teacher for over 4 years and had the benefit of a judgment, whereunder they could have hoped for regularisation. It is not as if they are unfit to impart lessons altogether, they are having Masters Degree in the subject, and degree in education by a recognised method. On technical grounds, it may not therefore be justifiable to upset the position and throw them out as it will be in the interest of none. We uphold the judgment.” 5. I am of opinion that in so far as the petitioner was appointed prior to the introduction of Chapter XXXII of the KER, the petitioner is also entitled to the very same benefit as granted w.p.c.28554/07 5 by the Division Bench in so far as the situation is exactly identical. Accordingly, I declare that the petitioner's B.Ed. obtained through correspondence course is sufficient qualification for regularising his service as higher secondary school teacher. However, I hasten to add that I have not considered the specific question as to whether the qualification prescribed in Chapter XXXII requires a qualification after undergoing a regular course of study and whether the qualification obtained through correspondence course is expressly or by impliedly excluded. That question is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. Needless to say, the petitioner would be also eligible to have his service regularised from the date of his appointment and eligible for salary accordingly. Orders in this regard shall be passed by the 2nd respondent and arrears of salary shall be paid within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.28554/07 6