C. AJITHKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in O.P.No.13138/91 on the file of this court is the appellant in this writ appeal.The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge declining to interfere with Ext.P9(b)proceedings of the fifth respondent University derecognising the B.Ed .,degree of the appellant from the Jammu University obtained through correspondence and dismissing the original petition as such.Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) THE appellant was working as a High School Teacher on the strength of a B.Ed .,degree by correspondence awarded by the University of Jammu.When the question of retrenching one of the teachers having regard to the reduction of the sanctioned strength during the year 1989 -90 had arisen,the axe fell on the 6th respondent herein who took up the matter before this court in O.P.No.10261/89 for a declaration that the appellant herein is not qualified and entitled to continue as H.S.A.( Mathematics)and for a direction commanding the respondents therein to cancel the approval of appointment of the appellant and to oust him from service there reinstating the 6th respondent in service with all consequential benefits treating her as having continued in service without break.The said original petition was disposed of by this court as per Ext.R6(a)judgment directing the State of Kerala to pass final orders on a representation made by the 6th respondent on 4 -11 -1989 requesting the.Government to cancel appointment given to the appellant herein as the B.Ed,degree possessed by him from the University of Jammu is not recognised by the University of Kerala or the Govt.of Kerala and to reinstate the 6th respondent in service as H.S.A.Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.R6(a)judgment the Government passed Ext.P2 in the present original petition cancelling the approval of the appointment of the appellant and directing the Manager of the school to reappoint the 6th respondent as H.S.A,in the place of the appellant.Ext.P2 was challenged by the appellant before this court in O.P.No.2495/90 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge as per Ext.R6(b)judgment directing the Vice Chancellor to look into the matter as provided by S.10(13)of the Kerala University Act and to take a decision thereon.Ext.R6(b)judgment was under challenge by the appellant before this court in W.A.No.588/90 on the ground that the appropriate authority to take a decision in the matter is the Academic Council.W.A.No.588/90 was disposed of by a Division Bench by Ext.R6(c)judgment dated 28 -11 -1990 substituting the direction of the learned single Judge to the Vice Chancellor by a direction to the Academic Council of the University of Kerala.Immediately after the judgment of the Division Bench,the appellant submitted Ext.P7 representation to the Academic Council followed by another representation evidenced by Ext.P8 dated 10 -8 -1991.Pursuant to Ext.P8 there was no communication from the University.However,according to the appellant,as per Ext.P9 dated 3 -12 -1991 a decision is seen taken by the second respondent Deputy Director of Education,Kollam based on the proceedings of the meeting of the Academic Council held on 5 -7 -1991 cancelling the approval of appointment of the appellant and directing reappointment of the 6th respondent in his place.Ext.P9 as also the proceedings of the meeting of the Academic Council dated 5 -7 -1991 were under challenge in the original petition.Ext.P9 was stayed by this court and on the strength of the stay order,the appellant was continuing in service,but without salary.The appellant had a case that the University had not complied with the direction issued by this court in the writ appeal referred to above.Therefore,pending O.P.the appellant moved C.M.P.No.25468/94 in which this court directed the Academic Council to comply with the direction given by this court in C.M.P.No.7854/94 in the original petition and W.A.No.588/90 after giving an opportunity of being heard to all parties including the 6th respondent in so far as the decision of the Academic Council was taken without giving an opportunity to the appellant.Thereafter Ext.P9(b)order dated 4 -10 -1995 was passed by the.University considering the matter afresh after granting the appellant and 6th respondent an opportunity of being heard and came to the conclusion that the B.Ed,degree course passed by the appellant is a correspondence course which is not recognised by the Kerala University as equivalent to the B.Ed,degree of the University since the Kerala University recognise only regular and full time B.Ed.Degree course.It was Ext.P9(b)which was under challenge in the amended original petition which came to be dismissed as already noted.

(3.) APART from the aforesaid legal position militating against the appellant,there is yet another legal hurdle that stares at his face,viz.the decision of the learned single Judge(Ext.R6(b)and the decision of the Division Bench Ext.R6(c)which,according to us,concludes the issue between the parties.In Ext.R6(b)the learned Single Judge observed as follows: