NITHEESH.A. Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was appointed as Drawing Teacher in Muslim High School which is an Aided School under the 4th respondent with effect from 03.06.2013, is aggrieved by the rejection of approval of his appointment as per Ext P4 order of the 1st respondent, which was upheld in Ext P11 order of the 2nd respondent, on the ground that he does not have the requisite qualification as prescribed in Chapter XXXI Rule 3 of KER.

(2.) Petitioner's case is that, he is fully qualified for appointment as Drawing teacher, having passed S.S.L.C in the year 2003, B.Com in 2009 and MGTE qualification in 2003. According to him Ext.P3 series of certificates issued by the Director of Tamil Nadu Government Technical Examinations in the year 2003, is the same as certificate in MGTE qualification with the only difference that it has been issued by Government of Tamilnadu instead of Madras and hence he is fully qualified in tune with the provisions contained in Chapter XXXI of Kerala Education Rules 1958. Petitioner also points out that the very same respondents have approved the appointment of several drawing teachers having identical qualifications and hence he seeks direction to approve his appointment with effect from 3.6.2013. Petitioner has produced Ext P10 letter of the Director of Technical Education issued to him on 17.03.2016, by which he was informed that the Technical Examination certificate issued by the Department of Government Examinations, Chennai is recognised by the State Board of Technical Education, Kerala. The petitioner, points out that in the case of one Sri. K.R.Renjith, who was having similar qualifications acquired from the Tamilnadu Government, the Director of Public Instructions (DPI) had by Ext.P7 order issued on 06.11.2013, directed the District Educational Officer (DEO), Trissur, to approve his appointment as a Drawing Teacher, seeing that MGTE certificate in drawing obtained by him was equivalent to KGTE. It is also pointed out that Si. K. R Renjith, had filed W.P.(C) No. 25653 of 2015 when the DEO did not issue orders approving his appointment despite the direction in Ext P7, seeking further clarifications from the DPI regarding the equivalency of qualification. In Ext.P8 judgment, this Court found that it was incumbent on the DEO to issue formal orders of approval in tune with Ext P7 direction of the DPI and directed approval of his appointment.

(3.) The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the certificates produced by the petitioner are certificate of Higher Examination in free hand outline and model Drawing at Govt Technical Examination held at Dharapuram in 2003 in painting (oil colour) in 2005, in Design Pattern for Textile Fabrics and in Geometrical Drawing in 2006 issued by Additional Secretary to Govt of Tamil Nadu. Even at the time of hearing, the certificate Ext P10 produced by the petitioner was one in which the Director of Technical Education stated that the Technical Examination Certificates issued by the Department of Technical Examinations, Chennai are recognised by the State Board of Technical Examinations, Kerala. Petitioner had not produced any certificate to prove that the certificates acquired by him are equivalent to either KGTE or MGTE. The respondents have also referred to the judgment of this Court in W.P.C No. 24664/13, in which Govt was directed to consider the question of qualifications of the petitioner therein, who was also having certificates from Tamil Nadu.