KRISHNAN K.K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether acquisition of M.Ed. qualification by a primary school teacher could be treated/regarded as a Post Graduate Course/qualification in the sphere of duties which are primarily of benefit to the State as envisaged under Rule 91A of Part I KSR, to be reckoned for the purpose of granting increments and such other service benefits under Rule 33 of the Part I KSR, is the question to be considered in this case. The petitioner seeks to substitute Rule 91A in Ext. P2 leave sanction order, passed by the first respondent/Secretary to Government, specifically under 'Rule 88' of Part I KSR, enabling the petitioner to undergo Post Graduate Course of M.Ed. for the period from 26.10.2010 to 30.09.2011, which was sought for as per Ext. P1 application dated 25.10.2010. Ext. P2 order, sanctioning the leave sought for vide Ext. P1, issued under Rule 88 of Part I KSR, stipulating that the same will not be reckoned for the purpose of granting increment, pension, higher grade, accumulation of earned leave etc., is under challenge.

(2.) The petitioner was working as an 'Assistant Teacher' in the 4th respondent's L.P. School from 22.07.1992. While so, she submitted Ext. P1 application for leave in Form 13, as envisaged under Rule 113 Part I KSR for Leave without Allowance (LWA) to pursue studies from 26.10.2010 to 30.09.2011. The application recommended by the Controlling Officer was considered and the same was sanctioned by the competent authority as borne by Ext. P2 order dated 07.01.2011. As per Ext. P2 order, it was specifically mentioned that the Leave without Allowance sought for by the petitioner was granted with effect from 26.10.2010 to 30.09.2011, under Rule 88 of Part I KSR for study purpose (for completing the M.Ed. course), subject to the condition that the period of 'LWA' will not count for pension, higher grade, increment, accumulation of earned leave and that the said fact will be recorded in the Service Book of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner completed the course and has obtained Post Graduate degree. After re-joining the service the petitioner submitted Ext. P4 representation dated 13.10.2011 before the first respondent/Government, requesting that the leave granted as per Ext. P2 order dated 07.01.2011, to be ordered as under Rule 91A, Part I KSR, instead of Rule 88 of Part I KSR and to have the same reckoned for service benefits including for grant of increments. Two weeks after filing the said representation, the petitioner chose to approach this Court by filing this writ petition seeking to set aside Ext. P2 and to direct the respondent to count the period of leave granted to the petitioner, to be treated as under Rule 91A and to reckon the same for the purpose of granting increments and such other service benefits.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent vehemently opposing the reliefs sought for, pointing out that the petitioner proceeded on leave on the very next day of submission of Ext. P1 application without getting the same sanctioned. After considering the application, the leave was sanctioned as per Ext. P2 under Rule 88 of Part I KSR and by virtue of the statutory prescriptions, the same is not liable to be reckoned for the purpose of granting increments or for such other service benefits. It is asserted that the petitioner is only a lower primary teacher, who is taking classes from Standard 1 to V alone, which requires only 'Plus Two' with 'TTC' or equivalent qualification. The higher Post Graduate qualification of M.Ed. obtained by the petitioner during the leave period is required only for teaching B.Ed. Training students and may be beneficial to the petitioner to get appointment in the Collegiate Education Department, which has no relevancy in the field of his work, i.e. as an L.P. School Teacher and hence it does not benefit the students/public at large or the Government. It is pointed out by the first respondent that Ext. P5 Circular dated 18.04.2001 has been issued as guidelines for sanctioning Leave Without Allowance to the teachers for 'study purpose' and usual area of higher studies mentioned under the Rules is TTI., B.Ed., Language Teachers' Training etc., which are required for their promotion; whereas in the instant case, the petitioner had undergone M.Ed. course which does not come within area of his duties/profession as an L.P. School Teacher. It is also asserted that Ext. P5 Circular does not specify that service benefits will be protected during the leave period.