BASHEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup for appellant and Mr. Alexander Thomas, Government Pleader for respondents.

(2.) THE unsuccessful petitioner is the appellant in this appeal. He challenged Ext. P1 dated 26. 12. 1995 rejecting his application on the ground that B. P. Ed, of Bangalore University is not an approved qualification for the post of PET and therefore, his appointment was rejected. Under Ext. P3 it is clearly stated that under the G. O. ( Rt )4066/86/g. Edn. dated 18. 11. 1986 it was ordered that the appointments of the madras and Mysore physical education certificate holders and B. P. E d, and M. P. E d, holders who took the course after June 1978 made in aided schools during the academic year 1983-84 will be approved as fully qualified from the date of their appointments and all re-appointments of such candidates who have got prior approved service in any aided schools will also be approved as fully qualified. In G. O. (MS) 78/87/g. Edn. dated. 31. 1. 1987 the Government have recognised the certificate in physical education of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu States as an alternative qualification for appointment as Physical Education Teachers in aided schools in the State with effect from 1984-85. When a few B. P. E d/m. P. E d, degree holders who have secured appointments aided schools after 1983-84 came to the notice of Government that their appointments have not been approved, a representation was made. THEy have represented that they were unware that these qualifications were not approved for appointment in aided schools when they were appointed and requested that they possess a superior qualification and therefore, their appointments should be approved. Government of Kerala, on examination of the matter in detail, passed G. O. (MS)26/91/g. Edn. date d. 21. 2. 1991 and ordered that as a concession, the appointments of Physical Education Teachers possessing B. P. Ed. / M. P. E d. already made till the end of academic year 1989-90 in the aided schools will be approved as fully qualified from the date of their appointments and their re-appointments will also be approved as fully qualified and fresh appointments of B. P. Ed. /m. P. Ed. holders made from 1990-91 will not be approved. This G. O. was challenged in the Original Petition by the appellant/ petitioner.

(3.) 1. 1999 wherein it was held as follows: "it is by now well settled that the courts will be loathe to interfere with the decisions taken by academic bodies unless it is shown that the decision is perverse, arbitrary or patently illegal or malafide. In the absence of any such allegation it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts and academic bodies who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be. Unless it is established that there is clear violation of norms or rules governing the subject, it will not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction of this court to interfere in academic matters. The view we are taking is fortified by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Sugunan v. University of Kerala (1984 KLT 1086 DB) wherein it has been held that except in cases where a clear violation of the norms, statutory or otherwise, is discernible, the courts will not interfere with the assessment made by expert academic bodies, if such assessment is bonafide". The appellant has no case that the decision arrived at by the respondent State is vitiated by malafides. Therefore, we dismiss the Writ appeal and confirm the judgment of the learned single judge however with liberty reserved to the appellant to approach the Government and the Government will consider the same and pass appropriate orders. . .