SADANANDAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions were referred by the learned Single judge as validity of R. 45 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'ker') is challenged. It is contended that since T. T. C. is prescribed as the basic qualification for appointment as Upper Primary school Teachers, preference given under R. 45 of Chapter XIV-A of the KER to graduate teachers is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that T. T. C. holders are fully qualified for appointment as Upper primary School Teachers and, therefore, at the time of promotion preference given to graduate teachers is illegal and without any basis. It is further submitted that preference given to graduate teachers for appointment as headmaster cannot be justified as it is not a superior qualification and insisting on graduate training has no nexus for appointment to the post of headmaster. The petitioners relied on the decision of the Supreme court in Mohammad Shuiat Ali and others v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1974 SC 1631 ). However, the decision is only concerned with equal pay for equal work and not with fixation of higher qualification for promotion. In the decision in state of U. P. v. Ramashrava Yadav and Anr. (1996 II LLJ. 92) it was held that the principle of equal pay for equal work is attracted only when two sets of employees are similarly situated and are discharging similar functions but yet are getting different scales of pay. In T. R. Kothandaraman v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage BD & Ors. (JT 1994 (6) SC 157) the Supreme Court after considering the entire case law held that educational qualification can be a basis of classification while considering promotion. Paragraph 16 of the above judgment provides as follows :"16. From what has been stated above, the following legal propositions emerge regarding educational qualification being a basis of classification relating to promotion in public service :- (1) Higher educational qualification is a permissible basis of classification, acceptability of which will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. (2) Higher educational qualification can be the basis not only for barring promotion, but also for restricting the scope of promotion. (3) Restriction placed cannot however go to the extent of seriously jeopardising the chances of promotion. To decide this, the extent of restriction shall have also to be looked into to ascertain whether it is reasonable. Reasons for this are being indicated later. " The Supreme Court in State of J. & K. v. Shiv Ram sharma and Ors. (1999 3 SCC 653) considered a case where educational qualification was prescribed as the basis for promotion. The contention was that it will affect the chances of existing employees and prescription of higher qualification for promotion is illegal. Following the decision in kothandaraman's case (supra) the Supreme Court held that it is permissible to the Government to prescribe appropriate qualifications in the matter of appointment or promotion.

(2.) HERE it is not disputed that the post of Headmaster is a promotion post. Therefore, it cannot be stated that prescription of higher qualification for promotion to the post of Headmaster is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. This Court in Kunjappa v. State of Kerala (1992 (2) KLT 87) held that if the rule making authority felt that in order to discharge the duties of a Head-master of a U. P. School, higher qualification of graduation with B. Ed. would be better suitable, it cannot be held that such a view is arbitrary. In Unnikrishnan Nambiar v. Government of Kerala (1996 (2)KLT 1010) also this Court upheld the validity of R. 45 of Chapter XIV-A of k. E. R. A Division Bench of this Court in Thulasibhai Amma v. Asst. Educational officer (1993 (2) KLT 245) also upheld the validity of R. 45a and held that a person with B. Ed. degree can be appointed as Headmaster eventhough TTC is the qualification prescribed for UPSA. Already this Court in Hameed v. State of kerala (1992 (1) KLT 565) and in 1996 (2) KLT 1010 (supra) upheld the validity of R. 45. Since the post of U. P. School Assistant and post of U. P. School headmaster are different and Headmaster has the administrative control, fixing higher qualification for promotion to the post of Headmaster cannot be held to be invalid. Therefore, we hold that R. 45 is valid. The educational authorities may finalise the matter on the basis of R. 45. In the absence of qualified teachers the statute also prescribes appointment of TTC holders as Headmaster subject to seniority and other conditions. It cannot be stated that there is discrimination to the senior teachers holding TTC without any reasonable classification or basis so as to hold that the statute will be in violation. Thus O. P. Nos. 7710 of 1993, 3419 of 1994, 7649 of 1994 and 12638 of 1995 are dismissed. Petitioner in O. P. No. 512 of 1995 was appointed by the manager who is the petitioner in O. P. No. 1034 of 1995. It is stated that she had the required qualification as mentioned in R. 45. She and Manager filed original Petitions when by Ext. P4 revisional order in O. P. No. 512 of 1995 government set aside the appointment ignoring R. 45 in favour of an under graduate teacher. The operation of Ext. P4 order was stayed by this Court at the time of admission. She retired as Headmistress in the meanwhile. Therefore, the matter has become infructuous and in any event, Ext. P4 is liable to be modified in favour of the petitioner in view of R. 45 of Chapter XIV of K. E. R. O. P. No. 512 of 1995 and O. P. No. 1034 of 1995 are disposed of accordingly. . .