ABDUL GAFOOR C.H Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd petitioner is the daughter of the 1 st petitioner and they impugn Ext.P3 order, whereby, the former has been denied the benefit of a 'Non Creamy Layer Certificate', on the ground that the latter among them, as also his wife - the mother of the 2nd petitioner - joined service as Class II Officers, along with her husband, the 1st petitioner.

(2.) Smt.Malavika K. - learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that Ext.P3 has been issued by the 3rd respondent - Tahsildar without proper application of mind and without adverting to the Statutory Scheme because, as Ext.P6 would show, the 2nd petitioner's mother did not join a Class II post directly, but only after having served as an Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) in an Aided School. She argued that when this fact remains uncontroverted, the declarations is Ext.P12 judgment would come to play, wherein, it has been settled that the term 'gets into Class I/Group A' - as available in the Statutory Scheme - cannot mean that it should only be by promotion or deputation - which is to mean that it can also be through a Direct Recruitment process. She contended that since when the mother of the 2nd petitioner was initially appointed in Class III/Group C, namely as a UPSA, the Tahsildar has acted in gross error, in having issued Ext.P3. She thus prayed that the said order be set aside.

(3.) Sri.P.S.Appu - learned Government Pleader, however, submitted that the declarations in Ext.P12 judgment would not apply to the petitioners at all because, contrary to the facts noticed by the learned Judge therein, Ext.P6 would establish that the mother of the 2nd petitioner - who is the wife of the 1st, was directly recruited to a Class II Post as Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) in Chemistry, on 13/6/2018. He argued that, therefore, she can only be construed to have been directly recruited to a Class II Post; and hence that the rigour of Ext.P8 Government Order stand against the petitioners.