RETNABAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are by the original respondents Nos. 5, 4 and I respectively challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 664/84. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals may briefly be stated as follows: For the sake of convenience we shall advert to the parties with reference to W.A. No. 13/85. Respondent No.5 and the appellant were both working as High School Assistants (Hindi). It is not disputed that the appellant is junior to the 5th respondent. When the vacancy of the Headmaster of the High School occurred the 5th respondent though senior to the appellant, was found to be ineligible and therefore the appellant was promoted as Headmistress. The said promotion was approved on 9-9-1981. The 5th respondent challenged the same by way of appeal before the Deputy Director of Education. The said authority dismissed the appeal on 28-10-1983 by Ext. P1. It is in this background that the 5th respondent filed O.P. No. 664/84 challenging the promotion of the appellant and the dismissal of his appeal Ext. PI. The learned single Judge has allowed the original petition, quashed Ext. P1 and the authorities are directed to take appropriate steps on the basis that the 5th respondent was duly qualified for promotion to the cadre of Headmaster. It is the said decision that is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The educational qualifications are prescribed for the post of Headmaster by R.2 of Chap.31, the relevant portion of which reads:

(3.) But it was contended by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant in W.A. 110/85 that the recognition contemplated by R.2 is not of any qualification but recognition of the qualification bearing the letters B Ed or B.T. or L.T. As admittedly the 5th respondent does not possess B Ed or B.T. or L.T. the question of recognition does not arise in this case. What has been recognised by the Calicut University is not B.Ed or B.T. or L.T. but the Hindi Sikshan Parangat examination of the Kendriya Hindi Sikshan Mandal, Agra. The expression "B.Ed, or B.T. or L.T. conferred or recognised by the Universities in Kerala", on a plain reading of the same indicates that the conferment or recognition contemplated is of the qualification described by the letters B.Ed or B.T. or L.T. and not qualification described by any other letters. When the rule making authority intended that the letters by which the qualification is described is not relevant but what is relevant is the subject in which instruction has been given, it has used a different expression altogether in R.2(3)(c) of Chap.31 of the rules. So far as the music teachers are concerned the qualification prescribed is "Graduation in Music conferred or recognised by the Universities in Kerala". It is obvious that so far as graduation in music is concerned, the sane is not described with reference to any letters as such. Similar is the position so far as language teachers are concerned, the qualification in respect of whom is prescribed in R.3(2)(i) of Chap.31 as "a degree in Sanskrit conferred or recognised by the Universities in Kerala". If the rule making authority felt that a graduation in education or teaching was what was contemplated, they would have used the expression "graduation in education or teaching", instead of using the expression "B.Ed or B.T or L.T". It is therefore obvious that the recognition contemplated is of the qualification described by the letters B.Ed. or B.T or L.T and not qualification described in any other manner. If it was the intention of the rule making authority that irrespective of the nomenclature, any qualification recognised as equivalent to the qualification should also be one of the prescribed alternate qualifications, it would have used the expression "or its equivalent". Such expression has been used in R.2(3)(c) of Chap.31 regarding music teachers in regard to prescription of a pass in S.S.L.C Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala. The prescription therein is "or its equivalent". The expression "or its equivalent" has been employed in the rules whenever the rule making authority intended to prescribe the equivalent qualifications. If it was the intention of the rule making authority to prescribe equivalent qualifications also as qualifications it would have used "or its equivalent". The fact that the rule making authority has not prescribed any equivalent qualification but has prescribed only a qualification recognised by a University in Kerala significantly suggests that the recognition must be only of the qualification described by the letters B. Ed. or B.T. or L.T.