RAMAKRISHNAN K Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in these four Original Petitions have passed Sastri and Siksha Sastri Examinations conducted by the Rashtreeya Sanskrit Sanasthan. That is an autonomous body recognised by the Government of India. Sastri Examination has been treated as equal to BA Degree in Sanskrit. Siksha Sastri has been declared as equivalent to B.Ed. Examination. On the assumption that these qualifications were sufficient for appointment as Primary School Assistants, they were appointed as Assistant Teachers by Private Managements conducting Aided Schools. Such appointments were approved by the controlling officers. It was subsequently discovered that Sastri Examination was equivalent to BA (Sanskrit) and Siksha Sastri qualified the teachers only to teach Sanskrit. In the light of the clarification issued by the Director of Public Instruction, proceedings were initiated for revising approval of appointments of the petitioners. It is the validity of such proceedings which are under challenge in this batch of Original Petitions. Since the facts involved in these Original Petitions are substantially similar and the documents and contentions are common, I will deal with them with specific reference to O.P. No. 2193 of 1982.

(2.) Petitioner passed SSLC Examination in 1974. He passed Sastri Examination in 1979 and Siksha Sastri Examination in 1980. Government issued G.O. Rt. 2586/66/Edn. dated 15-9-1966 declaring Sastri (Siksha) Examination of Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha. Thiruppathy as equivalent to B.Ed. Degree Examination for purposes of appointment as Sanskrit Teachers in Educational Institutions in the State. The Government of India (Ministry of Education) informed the Government of Kerala that the parent body conducting the Examination in Siksha Sastri was the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sanstan. The Government, accordingly, issued Ex. P-6 G.O. Ms. 204/73/G.Edn.. dated 17-12-1973 declaring that Siksha Sastri Examination of Rashtriya Sanskrit Sanstan was equivalent to B.Ed. Degree Examination for purposes of appointment as Sanskrit Teachers in the State Educational Institutions. Ext. P-I-G.O.1PI No. 143/78'GAD dated 16-3 1978 was issued later by Government recognising Sastri and Acharya Examinations of the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sanstan as equivalent to B.A. (Sanskrit) and M.A. (Sanskri) Degree Examinations of the University of Kerala for purposes of appointment to public services in the State, provided that candidates have passed the Sastri Examination with English as a subject in the compulsory part under the new syllabus. The effect of those two orders was to provide that a candidate who had passed Sastri and Siksha Sastri Examinations would be entitled to be appointed as a High School Assistant in Sanskrit. The Director of Public Instruction, however, in his letter, Ext. P2, apparently without careful scrutiny of Ext. P6 and PI orders stated that appointment of a candidate with those qualifications as a Primary School Assistant could be approved. Petitioner was appointed as a Primary School Assistant in A.V. High School, Ponnani with effect from 1-7-1981. That appointment was , approved by endorsement of the Educational Officer dated 19-10-1981 as is evident from Ext. P3. The Director of Public Instruction appears to have realised this mistake. He, therefore. wrote Ext. P5 letter dated 27-1-1982 to the District Educational Officer, Tirur stating that Ext. P2 letter written by him directing approval of appointment of a teacher with Siksha Sastri qualifications as Assistant Teacher was wrong. He referred to Ext. P6, G.O.Ms.204/ 73/G.Edn. dated 17-12-1973 and stated that that qualification was approved only for appointment as Sanskrit Teacher. He also offered an explanation that Sastri Siksha Sastri Examinations of Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, University of Bihar. were declared equivalent to B.Ed. Examination of the University of Kerala in G.O.Ms. 87/76/G. Edn. dated 17-5-1976 and Ext. P2 was issued under the impression that both the qualifications were one and the same. He. therefore, cancelled Ext. P2 order. The District Educational Officer, on receipt of Ext. P5 required the Heads of U.P. and L.P. Schools to submit details of Siksha Sastry holders working as U.P. School Assistants in those Schools. He followed it up by issue of Ext. P4 addressed to the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram, informing him that the petitioner was a Siksha, Sastri holder working as U.P. School Assistant with effect from 1-7-1981 to A.V. High School, Ponnani and his appointment has been approved by endorsement dated 19-10-1981 of the concerned Educational Officer. It was at that stage that. this Original Petition was filed. Petitioner submits that he complies with the requirement of Exts. P1 and P6 orders. He claims that he was appointed as an Upper Primary School Assistant on the basis of the representation contained in Ext. P2. His further case is that but for that, he would have applied for appointment as Sanskrit Teacher in Government or Aided Schools. He was deprived of such chances, because of the representation contained in Ext. P2 which was acted upon when he offered himself for appointment as Primary School Assistant and when such appointment was approved by the concerned Educational Officer. It is his case, therefore, that the respondents are precluded from going back upon their promise. Counsel for petitioners also submits that the only fact that they possessed a higher qualification than that prescribed for appointment as an Upper Primary School Assistant shall not be a reason for cancelling their-appointment in the lower post. A still further submission is that Siskha Sastri Examination conducted by Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyappetha and the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sanstan are one and the same, and therefore the Director of Public Instruction was not justified in issuing Ext. P5 for the reason that he acted under a misapprehension when he issued Ext. P2 instructions, which resulted in their appointment and approval thereof of the petitioners as Primary School Assistants.

(3.) Facts in the other petitions are also substantially similar as I have noticed above. The point for consideration is as to whether it can be held that the respondents have no jurisdiction to interfere with the approval of the appointment of the petitioners. either on principles of equitable estoppel. or on the ground that the qualifications possessed by the petitioners are sufficient for appointment as Primary School Assistants.