Neethi P. v. State of Kerala & Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sathish Ninan
Judgment Date: 2024-03-27
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of with directions: Ext.P7 is quashed; the 1st respondent to consider, within one month of a representation by the petitioner, the question of regularisation and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions as above (Ext.P7 quashed; regularisation consideration on representation within one month).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Neethi P.

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN-695001
The Assistant Educational Officer Thalassery North, Kannur District, PIN-670101
District Educational Officer Thalassery, Kannur District, PIN-670101
The Manager Kozhur Upper Primary School, Eruvally P.O. 670647
Smitha Koovakka Bhavana, P.O.Eruvally, Kannur District-670647

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. P. Ashok Kumar
• S. A. Abdul Saleem
• S. Nandagopal

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Ext.P7, a Government Order (Go) that interfered with Ext.P6, which had upheld the petitioner Neethi P.’s claim for appointment as Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA) in the Kozhur Upper Primary School. The core dispute concerns eligibility qualifications for LPSA under the Kerala Education Rules (KER). The petitioner, TTC holder, asserts that the 5th respondent, who possesses only a B.Ed., was improperly preferred under Rule 51A (Chapter XIV) due to seniority, while Chapter XXXI Rule 4 fixes TTC as the qualification for LPSA. Ext.P3 (Go 2000 amendment) clarified TTC as the sole qualification; Latha v. State of Kerala (SC) is cited to establish TTC as essential and that a B.Ed. does not suffice for LPSA. The 5th respondent’s appointment under Ext.P7 is challenged on grounds that it relied on seniority rather than qualification. The Government’s Ext.P7 order is found liable to be quashed because it ignored the explicit TTC requirement. The petition ultimately seeks regularisation and administrative relief. The court notes subsequent postings (cluster coordinator, later LPSA vacancy) and directs the 1st respondent to consider any representation for regularisation within one month after hearing, thereby disposing of the petition with a provisional remedy rather than a direct appointment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Education Rules (KER), Chapter XXXI, Rule 4KER, Chapter XIV, Rule 51A

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that TTC is the mandatory qualification for LPSA under KER Chapter XXXI Rule 4. The 5th respondent’s claim rests on Rule 51A, which cannot override statutory TTC requirements. The 5th respondent lacked TTC, rendering Ext.P7 invalid and susceptible to quashing. The petitioner emphasizes Latha v. State of Kerala (SC) and Ext.P3 (2000 amendment) establishing TTC as the qualifying criterion. The remedy sought is quashing Ext.P7 and consideration for regularisation if a representation is made.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit Ext.P7 reflects seniority-based relief under Rule 51A and that retirement vacancies may be allocated to eligible claimants notwithstanding the 5th respondent’s B.Ed credential. They rely on the seniority and the procedure for selection under Rule 51A, contending that Ext.P7 is a valid exercise of Government power to resolve post-retirement vacancies.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Latha v. State of Kerala	2003 (1) KLT 949 (SC)	Positive	Cited to support that TTC is the necessary qualification for LPSA and that a B.Ed holder cannot alone qualify; the Court adopts this standard in evaluating the 5th respondent’s eligibility.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946** ## **WP(C) NO. 1626 OF 2013** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **NEETHI P.** **AGED 36 YEARS** **LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, KOZHUR UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, P.O.ERUVALLY, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.S.A.ABDUL SALEEM SRI.S.NANDAGOPAL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.** - **2 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATONAL OFFICER THALASSERY NORTH, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670101.** - **3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670101.** - **4 THE MANAGER KOZHUR UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, ERUVALLY P.O. 670647.** - **5 SMITHA KOOVAKKA 'BHAVANA', P.O.ERUVALLY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670647.** - **BY ADVS.** - **GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **SATHISH NINAN, J. ========================== W.P.(C) No.1626 OF 2013 ========================== Dated this the 27[th] day of March, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 Government Order, declining her appointment to the post of LPSA with due regard to her Rule 51A claim. 2. The dispute involved in this writ petition is centered around the appointment to the post of LPSA in the 4[th] respondent school. 3.The petitioner is TTC holder. On 08.06.2005, the petitioner was appointed as LPSA in the 4[th] respondent school. Subsequently, in the year 2008 there occurred division fall. Consequently, the petitioner was retrenched from service with effect from 15.07.2007. 4. On 31.03.2011, there arose a retirement vacancy. As per Ext.P2 order dated 23.06.2011, the 4[th] respondent **WP(C) No.1626 OF 2013** 2 purported to appoint the petitioner ‘temporarily’ to the said post. 5. In the meanwhile, on 31.05.2011, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 request before the 4[th] respondent seeking her appointment as LPSA with effect from 01.06.2011 towards the retirement vacancy that had occurred and having due regard to her claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV of the KER. The 5[th] respondent raised a rival claim to the said post. She claimed that she was also a Rule 51A claimant, who was appointed earlier in point of time. Hence, she is liable to be appointed. The Assistant Educational Officer passed Ext.P5 order, considering the rival claims and upheld the claim of the 5[th] respondent. 6. The 5[th] respondent was not a TTC holder. She possessed only a B.Ed Degree. **WP(C) No.1626 OF 2013** 3 7. Challenging Ext.P5 order, the petitioner approached the District Educational Officer. As per Ext.P6 order dated 23.09.2011, the District Educational Officer set aside Ext.P5 order, and upheld the claim of the petitioner. It was noticed that the qualification for appointment to the post of LPSA was TTC and not B.Ed Degree. 8. Challenging Ext.P6 order of the District Educational Officer, the 5[th] respondent approached the Government. The Government, as per Ext.P7, interfered with Ext.P6 order of the District Educational Officer and upheld the claim of the 5[th] respondent. The order was passed considering the seniority interse between the rival 51 A claimants. Ext.P7 is under challenge in this writ petition. 9. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader. **WP(C) No.1626 OF 2013** 4 10. Chapter XXXI Rule 4 of the KER provides TTC as the qualification for Lower Primary School Assistant. **In Latha v. State of Kerala [2003 (1) KLT 949 (SC)]** , the Apex Court held that the necessary qualification for appointment as teacher in the primary school is TTC, and that a B.Ed Degree holder cannot be held to be holding sufficient qualification without a TTC. The Government had issued Ext.P3 order dated 26.06.2000 that as per amended Rules 3 and 4 of Chapter XXXI of KER, only TTC holders are eligible to be appointed as LPSA and not B.Ed holders. 11. In the light of the above, there could not be any dispute with regard to the qualification required for appointment as LPSA. In Ext.P7 Government Order, the reason stated is the seniority of the 5[th] respondent over the petitioner. However, **WP(C) No.1626 OF 2013** 5 the fact that the 5[th] respondent did not possess the required qualification was not given due consideration. The required qualification being TTC, and the 5[th] respondent not being a TTC holder, she could not have been appointed to the post of LPSA, solely relying on the prior claim under Rule 51A. Ext.P7 order is thus liable to be quashed. 12. It is brought to the notice of this Court that as per Ext.P8 order dated 26.07.2012, the petitioner was appointed as a cluster coordinator. It is also pointed out that on 21.02.2018, the petitioner was appointed to the subsequent vacancy of LPSA that arose in the school. 13. Now, the grievance of the petitioner remains to her entitlements and regularization of service during the period from 01.06.2011 till 21.02.2018. It would be sufficient if the petitioner **WP(C) No.1626 OF 2013** 6 approaches the 1[st] respondent with a representation in the said regard and the 1[st] respondent considers the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1[st] respondent that in the event the petitioner approaches within a period of one month with a representation with regard to regularisation, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders passed after hearing the petitioner. **Sd/SATHISH NINAN JUDGE** NB/27-3 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1626/2013** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 08.06.2005** **EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, KOZHUR U.P SCHOOL** **EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NO. 26327/J3/2000/G.Edn. DATED 26.06.2000** **EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.05.2011. EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2011 EXHIBIT P6 A COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEO DATED 23.09.2011. EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O.(Rt) No. 5294/2012 GEdn. DATED 05.11.2012. EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.07.12 EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2012 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER.** **EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3/16613/17/A DATED 06.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER No. G4/41543/2018/DPI/K.Dis DATED 04.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE DPI.** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1(a)** **COPY OF G.O.(MS) No. 42/11/G.Edn DATED 16.02.2011** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE**