THANIA Vs. D.E.O. ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in O.P.5226/74(hereinafter referred to as the petitioner)was appointed in the K.P.M.High School,Poothotta as a High School Assistant(Hindi)on 14th December 1971 in a maternity leave vacancy.The appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer.She was discharged from service for want of vacancy on 25th February 1972.Qualification of private school teachers in regard to various posts have now been prescribed in Chapter XXXI of Kerala Education Rules(hereinafter referred to as the Rules ).This chapter in the rules pres­cribing qualifications of teachers was added with effect from 5th December 1972 by notification dated 27th October 1972 published in Kerala Gazette dated 5th December 1972.The qualification for a High School Assistant(Hindi)as pres­cribed therein is that the candidates shall possess any one of the academic qualifications and a training qualification as specified below:"

(2.) THE petitioner has passed S.S.L.C.Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations in Kerala in 1962 and had also passed the Praveen of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha,Madras.She has also got the training qualification inasmuch as she had successfully undergone Pracharak Diploma of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha in 1968.She is,therefore,fully qualified to hold the post of a High School Assistant in Hindi.

(3.) WHEN a leave vacancy arose in the post of the lower grade Hindi Teacher in the same High School from 8th June 1973 to 16th August 1973 the fourth respondent(in O.P.5226/74)was appointed to the same.She has passed the S.S.L.C.and also passed the Bhasha Ratna of the Bombay Hindi Vidya Peeda.In G.O.Ms.108/Edn .,dated 4th March 1966 Government had recognised the Bhasha Ratna of the Bombay Hindi Vidya Peeda with S.S.L.C.as sufficient qualification for appointment as Hindi Teacher in Upper Primary Schools in the State.But the qualifications laid down by rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of the rules do not accept the above qualification as sufficient for appointment as a Hindi Teacher.The appointment of the fourth respondent in O.P.5226/74 who happens to be the petitioner in O.P.3952/74(hereinafter referred to as the 4th respondent)was not approved by the District Edu­cational Officer.It may be noted that she had been earlier appointed in a short vacancy in the school from 19th January 1970 to 16th March 1970 which appointment had been approved by the educational authorities.