Aliyamma Poulouse v. State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/2ND ASWINA, 1936** ## **WP(C).NO. 24637 OF 2009 (Y)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S): --------------------------** **ALIYAMMA POULOSE, THEKKILAKKATTU HOUSE, MUDAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 686 669, (RETD. H.M., MUTTUNGAL SOUTH U.P. SCHOOL, MUTTUNGAL, WEST P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR, SRI.SAJU JOHN, SRI.V.VARGHESE, SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER CHOMBALA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.SOJAN JAMES.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **WP(C).NO. 24637 OF 2009 (Y)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L.DIS. C-6877/05 DATED 24/03/2006 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 31/07/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6.6116/06 K.DIS. DATED 30/04/2007 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 05/11/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G3/33384/2008.DPI/K.DIS. DATED 25/06/2008 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 30/11/1974 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 30/11/1974 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 28/08/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1STY RESPONDENT UNDER RULE 92 CHAPTER XIV A OF THE K.E.R. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/10/2008 IN WP(C).NO.29282/2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.2932/09/G.EDN. DATED 15/07/2009.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-** **NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **rs.** ## **C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.** ----------------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 24637 of 2009 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 24th day of September, 2014 ## JUDGMENT The petitioner, while working as Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) in an aided school was promoted as Headmistress with effect from 1.4.2002. She got retired from service as on 31.3.2006. She possessed qualification of Malayalam 'Vidwan' title and also in Language Teachers Training Certificate (LTTC) in Malayalam. She was promoted to the post of Headmistress on the basis that there was no qualified graduate teachers available with B.Ed degree, in the school in question. Presumably the promotion was made based on provisions contained in Rule 45 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rule (KER). But approval of the appointment as Headmistress was rejected by the 4[th] respondent through Ext.P1, stating the reason that the qualification of 'Vidwan' title (Malayalam) and LTTC (Malayalam) are not the requisite qualifications prescribed under Rule 45 for promotion to the post of Headmistress. Appeal filed against Ext.P1 before the 3[rd] respondent was rejected through Ext.P3 stating the very same reason. Further, revision petition filed before the 2[nd] respondent 2 Wpc.24637/2009 was also rejected through Ext.P5, observing that the petitioner does not possess qualification as required under the relevant Rule. The petitioner thereupon approached the 1[st] respondent in a further revision petition, which was disposed of through Ext.P10 order. The Government observed that LTTC or 'Vidwan' title is not an equivalent qualification to B.Ed, TTC or TCH, prescribed under Rule 45 for appointment to the post of Headmaster in UP or LP schools. It was observed that the Malayalam 'Vidwan' is an alternative qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Malayalam teacher. But it is not an equivalent qualification. However taking a lenient view based on the fact that the petitioner had retired from service, it was decided to approve her service as teacher-in-charge for the period from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2006. It is challenging Exts.P1, P3,P5 and P10 this writ petition is filed. 2. In the counter affidavit of the 2[nd] respondent it is contended that, the petitioner is not qualified and eligible to be promoted as Headmistress, as per Rule 45 of Chapter XIV A of the KER, because Malayalam 'Vidwan' title or LTTC are not equivalent qualifications, even though they are alternative qualification prescribed for appointment of a language teacher. Wpc.24637/2009 3 Since the petitioner is not qualified to be appointed as Headmistress, she is not entitled to salary of Headmistress with effect from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2006, is the contention. It is stated that the petitioner's service was already approved as teacher-incharge and she will be eligible for all monetary benefits in that respect. 3. Sri. Prappancode V. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on a Full Bench decision of this court in **S.N.D.P. L.P.School vs. Roy (2006 (4) KLT 497) (FB).** It is held therein that the term Primary School Assistant mentioned in Rule 45 A includes both Lower Primary and Upper Primary School Assistants. Hence it is held that training qualification prescribed for the post of UPSA should be considered as other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Headmaster in LP school. Referring to Rule 45 A which is in pari materia with Rule 45, this court held that not only the qualification of TTC issued by the Board of Public Examination is a requirement under the Rule, but also “any other training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant” will be sufficient. Therefore it is held that if the teacher has any other training qualification prescribed under Rule Wpc.24637/2009 4 as primary school Assistant, she can be promoted as Headmaster in the absence of any qualifying teacher. Contention of the petitioner is that since the qualification as LTTC is provided as an alternate qualification for appointment as UPSA, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion as HM even if such qualification is not an equivalent training qualification prescribed under Rule 45. 4. The issue involved in this writ petition stands covered through another decision of this court directly on the point. In **Sally Mathew vs. State of Kerala (2002(3) KLT 816)** this court held that any teacher with LTTC or with 'Vidwan' title cannot be appointed as Headmistress of a UP or LP school since those qualification are not equivalent training qualifications prescribed under Rule 45 and 45A. Neither the Government nor the Universities have recognised it as an equivalent qualification. In this regard the view taken by a learned Judge of this court in **Sethumadhavan vs. Government of Kerala (2001(2) KLT 461)** was upheld. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on yet another decision of this court in **Vijayamma vs. St. Mary's U.P.School (2001 (2) KLT 469).** There it is held that, Wpc.24637/2009 5 the title of 'Vidwan' with LTTC is an alternative qualification for appointment as Primary School Teacher. But that does not mean that it is equivalent to graduation or it is equivalent to B.Ed. Those are only alternative qualification. Further it is held that exemption from qualification does not make one as possessing an equivalent qualification. The contention raised therein to the effect that LTTC should be taken as equivalent to B.Ed was negatived stating that Rule 2 of chapter XXXI does not say that the language teachers training course has been equated with B.Ed, BT and LT. Title of 'Vidwan' with LTTC is an alternative qualification for appointment. But that does not mean that the title is equivalent to graduation or LTTC is equivalent to B.Ed. Those are only alternative qualifications. An exemption from qualification does not make one as possessing an equivalent qualification. The exemption is under special circumstances. The same principle is reiterated in the decision in **Sethumadhavan's case** (cited supra). 6. Going by provisions contained in Rule 45 it is evident that, when qualified teachers are not available to be promoted as HM, the seniormost Primary School Teacher with SSLC or equivalent and with TTC, TCH or PDC with Pedagogy as an Wpc.24637/2009 6 elective or having any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant can be appointed. As held in the decisions cited above, the educational qualification possessed by the petitioner cannot be considered as an equivalent training qualification prescribed as above. The contention based on the claim that the petitioner possesses alternative qualification cannot be considered for directing promotion as the Rule is specific to the extent that the teacher should possess an equivalent training qualification as that of TTC, TSH etc. 7. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the stand taken by the respondents in the impugned orders does not suffer from any infirmity. Consequently the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. ## C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. pmn/