High Court Kerala High Court

Rethna Bhai vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 10 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
Rethna Bhai vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 10 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 14969 of 2004(F)


1. RETHNA BHAI, W/O. RAMESHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

3. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :10/11/2009

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                   -------------------------------------------
          W.P(C).Nos.21327 OF 2003 & 14969 OF 2004
                   -------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009


                               JUDGMENT

1.The petitioners in these writ petitions applied for being

considered for the post of Lecturer in Malayalam in the

Training Colleges under the Collegiate Education

Department of the State Government in terms of Ext.P1

notification of the Public Service Commission.

2.The entitlement of the petitioner in W.P(C).14969/04 stands

rejected by the PSC on the ground that she did not have the

requisite experience in as much as her experience as

primary departmental teacher in a school is not an

experience entitled to be reckoned.

3.W.P(C).21327/03 is filed by one of the candidates

challenging the inclusion of candidates who have not passed

the National Eligibility Test (NET) in Education, also in the

WPC.21327/03 & 14969/04

2

field of choice, for selection and appointment in terms of

Ext.P1 notification. In opposition to W.P(C).21327/03, the

PSC has placed on record a counter affidavit, taking the

specific stand that the candidate ought to have NET

qualification in the concerned subject and also in Education

for being considered for appointment to the Training

Colleges.

4.The different posts notified as per Ext.P1 relating to the

Training Colleges are posts in the Faculty of Education and

therefore, the insistence of the UGC, which have been

agreed to by the PSC in its counter affidavit, that a

candidate has to possess NET in Education and in the

concerned subject stands.

5.When these writ petitions were heard earlier on 3.10.2007,

the PSC had placed on record that a candidate shall possess

NET in Education as well as in the concerned subject.

Accordingly, it was declared that the candidates for selection

WPC.21327/03 & 14969/04

3

and appointment to the Faculty of Education in the Training

Colleges in different departments have to possess NET

qualification in Education and also NET qualification in the

concerned subject.

6.Thereafter, by common order dated 19.2.2008,

R.P.Nos.1051/07 and 1126/07 were ordered vacating the

aforesaid common judgment except to the extent of the

findings which were protected by that order. While

considering those two review petitions, this Court

specifically stated that the issue that arises for decision

ultimately, is as to whether a candidate, for being considered

for appointment as a Lecturer in Malayalam in a Training

College in the State of Kerala, requires NET qualification in

Education and also NET in Malayalam. Another review

petition which escaped from being disposed of then, viz.,

R.P.No.1119/07, has been ordered by me today, adopting the

common order in R.P.Nos.1051/07 and 1126/07. The writ

petitioner in W.P(C).14969/04 (Retna Bhai’s case) contends

WPC.21327/03 & 14969/04

4

that the prescription is only optional, in the sense that NET

qualification may be either in Malayalam or in Education.

The petitioner in W.P(C).21327/03, Deneshan, takes the

stand that NET qualification ought to be in Education even if

the applicant has NET qualification in Malayalam. The

question therefore is as to whether NET qualification in

Education is compulsory for the purpose of being considered

for appointment as Lecturer in Malayalam in a Training

College or is it sufficient if NET qualification is obtained

either in Malayalam or in Education.

7.Following the order dated 19.2.2008 on R.P.Nos. 1051/07

and 1126/07, different other materials were placed on

record, on the basis of which, the PSC has taken a stand that

its earlier plea was an error and it would be sufficient if NET

qualification is obtained either in Malayalam or in

Education. The qualifications prescribed for the post of

Lecturer in Training Colleges, as stated in the short counter

WPC.21327/03 & 14969/04

5

affidavit filed by the PSC, following directions of this Court,

are as follows:

“(i) Master Degree in the concerned subject or

discipline with at least 55% marks or its equivalent and

good academic records.

(ii) M.Ed degree with knowledge of special methods of

teaching the subjects.

(iii) Three years teaching experience in Schools or

Colleges after acquiring the personnel qualifications.

(iv) Must have passed a comprehensive test specially

conducted for the purpose by UGC or any agency duly

constituted by the State Govt. in this behalf.

When qualifications are equal preference shall be

given to candidates who possess adequate knowledge

in Malayalam. Candidates need to possess either NET

in Education or NET in the concerned subject

(Malayalam) to be eligible for selection in Training

Colleges”.

WPC.21327/03 & 14969/04

6

The specific plea of the PSC is that candidates need to

possess NET in Education or NET in the subject concerned

to be eligible for selection to Training Colleges. The

materials placed by the UGC is also not decisive to conclude

that an aspirant should possess NET qualification in

Education and NET in the concerned subject for being

eligible for selection as a Lecturer in a Training College.

In view of what is stated above, W.P(C).21327/03 is

dismissed. W.P(C).14969/04 is allowed as prayed for.

Having regard to the issues involved, the parties are

directed to bear their respective costs.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

kkb.5/11.