K SARASWATHY Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unsuccessful Petitioner in OP. No. 10901 of 1995 filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 25-2-2005. The Appellant got an appointment on 1-10-1959 as High School Assistant in an aided school run by the 5th Respondent. At that time, she was only a graduate and for want of B. Ed. Degree she was not qualified as a High School Assistant. Later, she acquired B. Ed. Degree on 4-6-1962 and thus her qualified service commenced from that date onwards. The 6th Respondent got appointment on 1-7-1959 in the same school as H.S.A.(Malayalam). At that time, he had no training qualification. Since no training course for language teacher was conducted in the State, there was an order granting general exemption in the case of language teachers and as such at the time when the 6th Respondent was appointed he was a qualified H.S.A. Later, he had undergone Language Teachers Training (LTT) and obtained certificate on 1-6-1964. Thereafter, he acquired B. Ed. Degree on 1973. While so, the post of the Headmaster fell vacant on 31-3-1991. The 5th Respondent appointed the Appellant as Headmistress by Ext.P1 order dated 1-4-1991. But, the 4th Respondent, the District Educational Officer, Neyyattinkara by Ext.P2 dated 21-8-1991 declined to approve the appointment of the Appellant for the reason that the 6th Respondent had more qualified service than that of the Appellant. Though, the Appellant preferred appeal before the 3rd Respondent, the Deputy Director of Education, Thiruvananthapuram, it was dismissed by Ext.P3 order dated 16-1-1992. The first revision before the 2nd Respondent, the Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram and the second revision before the first Respondent State were dismissed by Exts.P4 and P5 orders. Though, the Appellant made another attempt to have Ext.P5 reviewed, she was not successful. Assailing Exts.P2 to P5, the Appellant preferred the above writ petition.

(2.) The learned single Judge accepting the contentions advanced by the first Respondent as well as the 6th Respondent and referring to Rule 37(1) of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, arrived at a finding that the seniority of the Appellant as H.S.A. can be counted only from 4-6-1962 when the Appellant acquired B. Ed. Degree and qualified for appointment as High School Assistant. On the other hand, at the time when the 6th Respondent was appointed on 1-7-1959, he was a qualified teacher and later, he acquired a Language Teachers Training Certificate (LTTC) as well as B. Ed. Degree and thus the 6th Respondent had continuous qualified service from 1-7-1959 and is senior to the Appellant on qualified service basis. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. Now this appeal.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant as well as the Government Pleader Smt. T.B. Remani. The facts stated above is not in much dispute. As found by the learned single Judge by virtue of Rule 37(1) of Chapter XIV A of the K.E.R., the qualified service of the Appellant commenced only from 4-6-1962 when she acquired the B. Ed. Degree. On the other hand, in view of the exemption granted as per G.O.(MS) No. 479/Edn. dated 23-7-1962 and G.O.(Rt.) No. 2128/73/G. Edn. dated 22-8-1973, the 6th Respondent was a qualified teacher ever since his appointment on 1-7-1959 as at the time of appointment no B. Ed. degree or certificate in training for language teachers was mandatory. Thereafter, the 6th Respondent obtained LTTC and B. Ed. Degree. In the above circumstance, applying Rule 37(1) of Chapter XIV A of the K.E.R., the 6th Respondent is senior to the Appellant and the appointment of the Appellant superseding the 6th Respondent was against the rule. Respondents 1 to 4 were right in rejecting the appointment of the Appellant. The judgment of the learned single Judge suffers no vice. The appeal is devoid of any merit.