IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16163 of 2006(Y)
1. AMBIKA P.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR,
3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, CHERTHALA.
4. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF
For Respondent :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :/ /
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 16163 OF 2006
............................................................................
Dated this the 18th August , 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher
(History) in the Kandamangalam Higher Secondary School, Cherthala as per
Ext. P3 order of appointment dated 16.07.2001. It is stated that the petitioner
is qualified having M.A., M.Phil degrees. It is further stated that as per G.O.(P)
No. 144/01/Gl.Edn dated 16.04.2001 and G.O.(P)No. 331/01/Gl. Edn. dated
09.11.2001 those who are having M.Phil qualification are exempted from
acquiring B.Ed qualification for a period of five years from the date of their
appointment. It is also stated that the Government have extended the period for
acquiring B.Ed degree by another two years in some cases. It is submitted that
the petitioner has not so far acquired the B.Ed qualification. The petitioner has
submitted Ext. P10 representation dated 05.06.2006 before the first respondent.
It would appear that the relief prayed for in that representation is for an order
granting permanent exemption from acquiring B.Ed qualification.
2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:
“i) issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records
leading to Ext.P7 order dated 17/6/01 issued by the 2nd
respondent stating that the petitioner is not qualified for
the post as per Special rules and Ext.P8 order
W.P.(C) No. 16163 OF 2006
2
No.6851/T2/05/G.Edn dated 6/12/05 issued by 1st
respondent stating that the petitioner is not eligible to get
approval of appointment as not fully qualified for the post
and quash the same.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to
approve the appointment of the petitioner as HSST History
in the school of 4th respondent with effect from 16/7/01.
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and
pass orders on Ext. P10 representation by approving the
appointment of the petitioner forthwith.
iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
order or direction directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to
declare that the non acquisition of B.Ed by the petitioner
who is having M.Phil qualification will not entail any
consequences prejudicial to the service of the petitioner as
HSST.
v) Issue such other appropriate writ order or direction as
this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper.
vi) Allow the cost of the Writ Petition.”
3. Among the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition, the only relief that can
be granted to the petitioner for the present is a direction to the first respondent
to dispose of Ext.P10 representation. As regards the question whether the
petitioner is entitled to get her appointment approved is a matter to be decided
by the first respondent. I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case. Ext. P10 representation shall be disposed of within a period of two
W.P.(C) No. 16163 OF 2006
3
months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, in
accordance with law.
4. It is submitted that at present the petitioner is undergoing studies for
B.Ed course. The subsequent events can be incorporated in an additional
representation, in which case, it shall be treated as part of Ext.P10. The
petitioner would be free to produce such other materials and documents, as are
relevant before the first respondent in support of her contention. All the
contentions of the petitioner are left open.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk