IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33841 of 2009(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ FATHIMUTHU SUHARA.T, H.S.A (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), MOHAMMEDALI JOUHAR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ELLETTIL.P.O, ELETTILL - 673 572, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.J.MATHEW, SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN, SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THAMARASSERY, THAMARASSERY.P.O, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE MANAGER, MOHAMMEDALI JOUHAR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ELETIL.P.O, ELETTIL-673 572, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE R4 BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.K.E.HAMZA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.33841/2009 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 07/06/2005. P2: THE STATEMENT OF CHANGE OF STAFF OF MOHAMMEDALI JAUHAR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ELETTIL DTD. 06/06/2005. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 03/02/2006. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 21/11/2006. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/05/2007 TO THE REGISTRAR OF UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 07/09/2007. P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30/01/2008. P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 25/10/2008 OF THE DIRECTOR OF S.C.E.R.T. P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 15/12/2008. P10: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 15/05/2009. P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29/07/2009. P12: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 04/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 33841 of 2009-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT The approval of appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A. (Physical Science) stands rejected finally by the Government as per Ext.P11, finding that the B.Sc. (Electronics) is not an equivalent qualification for appointment as H.S.A. (P.S.). 2. The petitioner was appointed as H.S.A. (P.S.) in the 4th respondent's school by Ext.P1 order passed by the Management. The approval was declined as per Ext.P3 stating that she is not possessing the qualification prescribed in Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI K.E.R. and protected teacher has to be appointed in the said vacancy. An appeal was filed against the same which was rejected by the second respondent and again the matter was taken up before the Government by filing a revision petition. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that at the stage when the revision petition was pending, the Government sought the opinion of the University, the Director of S.C.E.R.T. and the Director of Public Instruction as to whether B.Sc. (Electronics main with Physics and Computer Science as subsidiary) can be included as an academic qualification for the post of wpc 33841/2009 2 H.S.A. (P.S.) in aided schools as equivalent to B.Sc. (Physics) or B.Sc. (Chemistry). Ext.P5 is the copy of the letter sent to the Registrar of the University. It is pointed out that the Director of SCERT by Ext.P8 and the Director of Public Instruction by Ext.P10 communication, were of the view the degree in B.Sc. (Electronics) along with Physics and Computer Science as subsidiary subject, will be of assistance to students and other teachers also if the appointment of persons like the petitioners is approved. The main contention raised is that in Ext.P11 order none of those recommendations have been considered. 4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the qualification acquired is not now included among the required qualification as per Rule 2(a) of Chapter XXXI K.E.R. The petitioner has filed Ext.P12 representation before the Government again, seeking for inclusion of the said qualification for the post of H.S.A. (P.S.). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the absence of the qualification in the existing rule is the reason pointed out, inclusion of the same among the qualification can be considered by the Government. Since it is a matter requiring amendment of the rules itself, it is upto the Government to consider the matter after considering the opinion of various experts as pointed out by the petitioner. wpc 33841/2009 3 5. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Government to take a decision on Ext.P12 after hearing the petitioner and after assessing the opinion expressed by the various authorities as evidenced by Exts.P8 and P10. An appropriate decision will be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the said plea raised by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/