K P MATHIRI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interpretation of R.37 and 39 of the Kerala Education Rules (Rules for short) arises in this case. The quest ion is whether the 5th respondent in this appeal is entitled to court her service from the time of her appointment on 2-6-1945 till the date on which she obtained training qualification in 1951 as forming part of her "qualified service", within the meaning of that expression, in R.37 of Chap.14A of the Rules. If the answer to this question is in favour of the 5th respondent, this appeal is to be dismissed because we do not think we should interfere with the judgment of Isaac J., dismissing the Original Petition on the ground that there was no formal appeal before the District Educational Officer, the 2nd respondent or on the ground that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the order Ext. P3 by the 2nd respondent. We say so because the Assistant Educational Officer passed Ex P2 order on 1-4-1972 and this was objected to by the petitioner in a proper manner and in accordance with the direction given by the Assistant Educational Officer, the 3rd respondent by sending a representation through the manager. This was on the 11th of April, 1972 and Ex. P4 is that representation. The Assistant Educational Officer thought that be should consult the District Educational Officer as to what should be done on that representation, and accordingly forwarded it to the District Educational Officer. It is thus that Ex. P3 order came to be passed. We do not think that this is a case of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the 2nd respondent. We conceive that administrative directions can be given by the District Educational Officer, particularly in regard to matters on which the Assistant Educational Officer failed to act. Even otherwise we feel that the form of the representation before the District Educational Officer and the route by which it reached the District Educational Officer are not substantial in considering his jurisdiction. The representation of the 5th respondent can be treated as an appeal under R.3(2) in Chap.14A of the Rules from the order Ex. P2 of the Assistant Educational Officer and the order Ex. P3 an appellate order. In both cases it is valid and we do not think we should interfere with that order in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. We quite see that it would have been more proper if the District Educational Officer had heard the petitioner before passing Ex. P3 order. It is not as though the relevant questions had not been considered by the Assistant Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer and there has been, we think, no miscarriage of justice. The learned Judge has also come to the conclusion that the view taken by the District Educational Officer is the correct view. In these circumstances and the further circumstances mentioned in the judgment under appeal, we do not think we should interfere with the judgment refusing to exercise discretion under Art.226 of the Constitution.

(2.) Coming to the main question which we indicated in the beginning we will have to read R.37 and 39 in Chap.14A of the Rules. Those rules are as follows:

(3.) Isaac J., has understood exception 3 as exempting the qualifications prescribed provided the other conditions mentioned in exception 3 are satisfied, namely, that the teacher had been permitted a temporary permit by the Director to teach and that the teacher possesses the general qualifications. In other words, the view is that for persons who have obtained such permits as are referred to in exception only general qualifications are insisted upon and not the professional qualifications for a certain period, 3 years after the finishing of the course. On this view the writ application has been dismissed. We are not prepared to say that the view taken by Isaac J., is not a possible view on the interpretation of R.52 of the Cochin Education Code, 1921. Isaac J., expressed himself in this manner: --