JUDGMENT
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.
1. The point to be decided in both cases being the same, they are being disposed
of by a common judgment. The point that has arisen for decision in these cases is
whether a person who has passed B.Ed. through correspondence course from the
Annamalai University, though the said Degree is recognised by the Universities in
Kerala, is eligible for appointment as Headmaster. The brief facts necessary for the
disposal of the cases are the following:
W.A. No. 183/2000 T
The appellant joined the service of the second respondent’s school as H.S.A. on
18.9.1973. He was a Language Teacher. He has continuous service in that cadre
from 28.1.1976. He passed B.A. in 1986 and B.Ed. in 1988. The fifth respondent
joined the school as H.S.A. on 15.6.1983. She joined with B.A. and B.Ed. She
passed B.Ed. Degree from Annamalai University on 31.12.1980 and at the relevant
time the same was recognised by the Universities in Kerala. But from 1981 onwards,
it is submitted, the recognition of the said degree was withdrawn by our Universities.
2. A vacancy in the post of Headmaster in the second respondent’s School arose
on 1.6.14998. Admittedly, the appellant is senior in the cadre of H.S.A. But he did not
have 12 years graduate service on the date of occurrence of vacancy on 1.6.1998.
The fifth respondent was qualified in all respects. So, the Manager appointed the fifth
respondent. It is not necessary to refer to the various orders in favour of and against
the appellant passed by the statutory authorities. The final authority under the K.E.R.,
the Government by Ext. P7 order found of the fifth respondent. That was
the order impugned in the Original Petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the
Original Petition upholding Ext.P7. Hence the present Appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the Appellant Shri. P.K. Ashokan mainly urged two
points. The first contention was that since the Universities in Kerala have subsequently
de-recognised the B.Ed. Degree Course in Annamalai University awarded after
undergoing the correspondence course, it must be held that the fifth respondent is
ineligible for appointment as Headmistress. It is common case that when the fifth
respondent passed the B.Ed. Degree examination through correspondence course,
the said Degree was having recognition. Therefore, on the strength of the recognised
Degree, she was appointed as H.S.A. and the same was approved also. The subsequent
withdrawal of approval of a Degree will not invalidate the Degrees awarded by a
University earlier.
4. It so happens that a particular Degree of a University is recognised on finding that
the various norms for recognition are satisfied. When subsequently it is found
that the same standards are not being maintained in imparting instruction, the recognition
may be withdrawn. But that will not affect the validity of Degrees obtained when the
said course was having recognition. So, we are not inclined to accept the contention
urged in this regard by the appellant.
5. The second and important contention urged by the counsel for the appellant
was the one made relying on the explanation to Rule 44(A). To understand the said
contention properly, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions contained in
Chapter XXXI. Rule 2(1) of Chapter XXXI prescribes the qualification for Headmaster
in the following manner:
“A Degree in Arts or Science and B.Ed./B.T./L.T., conferred or recognised by the Universities in Kerala”.
Rule 1 of Chapter XXXI reads as follows:
“The teacher in private schools shall have the educational and professional qualification
prescribed in this Chapter. The conditions regarding age, departmental qualifications, service
qualifications and other service conditions shall be governed by the provisions of the Act and
the Rules contained in the foregoing Chapters.”
6. By virtue of this provision, there can be other additional qualifications apart
from those prescribed under Rule 2(2) of Chapter XXXI. Rule 44A prescribes the additional
qualifications for appointment as Headmaster. They are:
1. Twelve years of continuous graduate service.
2. Pass in the test in Kerala Education Act and Kerala Education Rules. &
3. Pass in Account test (Lower).
An Explanation has been added to Rule 44A on 24.6.1975 explaining what is graduate
service. The relevant portion of the said Explanation reads as follows:
“For the purpose of this Rule “Graduate Service” means service of a teacher as High School
Assistant, Training Assistant, Headmaster of an incomplete High School, Headmaster of a
complete Upper Primary School/Middle School or Headmaster of a Training School after
acquisition of a collegiate training, such as, B.T., L.T. or B.Ed.”
Relying on the said provision, it is contended by the appellant that the B.Ed.
Degree should be one obtained after attending a College. The B.Ed. Degree obtained
by the fifth respondent being only through the correspondence course, she does not
have the requisite graduate service in terms of the Rules, the appellant submits.
7. Controverting the above contention, the counsel for the contesting respondents
submitted as follows: There can be different types of training acquired by a teacher.
He might be a T.T.C. holder. He might have language teachers training course which
is sufficient for appointment as H.S.A. (Language). There are other training
qualifications, such as B.T./L.T./B.Ed. These three qualifications (BT/LT/B.Ed.) are
obtained after collegiate training. There might be a case where a teacher might have
completed 12 years service after obtaining Degree in the concerned Subject. But, he
may not have completed 12 years after obtaining B.Ed. Degree. If the qualification is
prescribed as graduate service obtained after acquiring training qualification, a language
teacher with L.T.T.C. or T.T.C. and who has completed 12 years service after obtaining
B.A. Degree will be eligible for appointment as Headmaster as L.T.T.C. and T.T.C.
are also training qualifications, even if he has not completed 12 years after obtaining
B.Ed. So, the exclude other training qualifications. it is specified that the 12 years
graduate service should be after acquisition of collegiate training. What is meant by
the said Explanation is that the training qualification must be a qualification at the
college level and not an inferior training qualification. We find that contention
urged by the respondents in a plausible view. It is not stated in the Rule that the
qualification must be B.T./L.T./or B.Ed. obtained after studying in a college. On the
contrary, the words used are “are acquisition of collegiate training, such as, B.T./L.T. or
B.Ed.” It only means that the graduate service must be service after obtaining B.T./L.T.
or B.Ed. or similar qualification.
8. In the above view, we find that the Appeal lacks merit. The view taken by the
learned Single Judge cannot be said to be wrong. So, the Appeal is dismissed.
O.P. No. 7729/2000 T
The very same point is raised in this Original Petition also. The 6th respondent
who acquired B.Ed. qualification from Annamalai University through correspondence
course has been promoted as Headmistress of Sree Narayana Vilasam Upper Primary
School, Kannankara, Kozhikode. The petitioner who is a rival claimant challenges the
same on the ground that the promotee is not qualified. In view of our decision in W.A.
No. 183/2000, this Original Petition is also liable to be dismissed and we do so. No costs.