IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10796 of 2009(T)
1. B.T.SHEEBA,W/O. M.KESARI DHAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
5. THE MANAGER
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :02/04/2009
O R D E R
P.N.Ravindran, J.
==================
W.P.(C) No.10796 of 2009
=====================
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. V.A.Muhammed, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri. A.J.Varghese, the learned Government Pleader
appearing for the official respondents.
2. The petitioner is presently working as H.S.A. (Hindi) in Evan’s
High School, Parassala managed by the fifth respondent. She was first
appointed as H.S.A. in the fifth respondent’s school in a leave vacancy for
the period from 7.10.1998 to 10.12.1998. That appointment was
approved. She was again appointed in another leave vacancy for the
period from 11.12.1998 to 11.12.1999. That appointment was also
approved. It appears, the petitioner did not have any of the training
qualifications prescribed in Rule 2(2)(iv) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala
Education Rules, hereinafter referred to as the “KER” for short, for
appointment to the post of H.S.A. (Hindi). Though she had passed
Pracharak Diploma from Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, as per the
provisions contained in Rule 2(2)(iv) of Chapter XXXII of the KER,
Pracharak Diploma of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha is
recognised as a training qualification only upto and including the
academic year 1969-70. Overlooking this aspect, the petitioner’s
WP(C) 10796/09 -: 2 :-
appointment in the leave vacancies was approved. Later, the petitioner
was appointed as H.S.A. (Hindi) against a long leave vacancy with effect
from 5.6.2000 as per Ext.P3 order dated 5.6.2000. The District
Educational Officer declined to approve the said appointment by Ext.P4
order passed on 3.4.2001 on the ground that the petitioner does not
possess the required training qualification and that Pracharak Diploma of
the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, which she had passed during
the academic year 1995-96 is not adequate training qualification. The
Manager carried the matter in appeal. By Ext.P5 order passed on
27.3.2002 the appeal was rejected. The petitioner thereupon moved the
Director of Public Instruction. By Ext.P6 order passed on 23.9.2002, the
Director of Public Instruction rejected the revision petition. The
petitioner thereupon moved the Government. By Ext.P7 order passed on
21.2.2005, the Government ordered as follows:
“Having considered the case in details taking a very
lenient view, Government hereby order to approve the
appointment of Smt. B.T.Sheeba as H.S.A. (Hindi), Evan’s
High School, Parassala, Thiruvananthapuram with effect
from 5.6.2000 in relaxation of rules, subject to the
following conditions:
I. She will acquire one of the qualifications prescribed
for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi) within a period of 3 years from
the date of issue of this order.
II. She will be paid only basic pay fixed for the post as
her salary with effect from 5.6.2000 treating her as under
qualified till she acquires any of the qualifications
WP(C) 10796/09 -: 3 :-
prescribed for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi). The directions in
the judgment read as 3rd paper above is thus complied
with.”
3. Ext.P7 order discloses that though the petitioner was not
qualified to be appointed as H.S.A. (Hindi), taking a lenient view, the
Government directed the educational authorities to approve her
appointment as H.S.A. (Hindi) with effect from 5.6.2000 in relaxation of
the rules subject to the condition that she should acquire one of the
training qualifications prescribed for the post of H.S.A. within a period of
three years from the date of issue of the order. It was also stated that
she will be paid only the basic pay fixed for the post as salary with effect
from 5.6.2000 treating her as under qualified till she acquires any of the
training qualifications prescribed for the post of H.S.A. (Hindi). The
petitioner thereafter underwent the diploma course in Hindi Teachers’
Training and completed it during the academic year 2007. The result of
the examination was published on 31.10.2007. The petitioner thereafter
moved the Government in Ext.P11 representation dated 31.3.2008
requesting the Government to treat the period of service from 5.6.2000
to 31.10.2007 for the purpose of grant of notional increments and grade
promotions. She also filed W.P.(C) No.29163 of 2008 in this Court. By
Ext.P12 judgment delivered on 3.10.2008, this Court directed the
Government to consider Ext.P11 representation and pass orders thereon.
As directed by this Court, the Secretary to Government, General
Education Department heard the petitioner on 2.1.2009. During the
WP(C) 10796/09 -: 4 :-
hearing, the petitioner submitted Ext.P13 written submission. By Ext.P14
order passed on 11.3.2009 the Government rejected the petitioner’s
request in Ext.P11 (which was marked as Ext.P10 in W.P.(C) No.29163 of
2008). Ext.P14 is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
4. The petitioner contends that the Government ought to have
granted to the petitioner the benefit of Ext.P10 Government order
wherein the Government had ordered that the service rendered by the
untrained school teachers will be reckoned for notional increments with
monetary benefit from the date of acquisition of the training
qualification. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that what
the petitioner had asked for in Ext.P11 was grant of increments on
notional basis during period from 5.6.2000 to 31.10.2007 and fixation
of pay on that basis with effect from 1.11.2007. The learned counsel for
the petitioner contends that the Government would not in any way be
affected if such request is entertained for the reason that the petitioner
was drawing only basic pay as salary during the said period. I am afraid,
there is a little or no merit in the said contention. The petitioner was not
qualified to be appointed as H.S.A. when she was first appointed from
7.10.1998 to 10.12.1998. When she was reappointed on 5.6.2000
against a regular vacancy, she did not admittedly possess any of the
training qualifications prescribed in Chapter XXXII of the KER. The
appointment of the petitioner was therefore liable to be rejected.
However, taking a lenient view, the Government directed the educational
WP(C) 10796/09 -: 5 :-
officers to approve her appointment subject to the two conditions set
out in Ext.P7. Ext.P7 order was passed in relaxation of the rules. It was
only because of the two conditions stipulated in Ext.P7 that the
Government directed the educational officers to approve the petitioner’s
appointment. On the strength of Ext.P7, the petitioner continued in
service and also acquired the prescribed qualifications. The claim of the
petitioner, is in my opinion grossly unjust. The Government permitted
her to continue in service as an unqualified hand. One of the condition
for such continuance was that she will be paid only basic pay as her
salary till she acquires any of the prescribed training qualifications. The
petitioner acquired the training qualification only on 31.10.2007.
Therefore, during the period from 5.6.2000 to 31.10.2007 on the terms
of Ext.P7, she was eligible only to draw the basic pay as her salary. If the
claim of the petitioner in Ext.P11 is accepted, she will start drawing
higher emoluments with effect from 1.11.2007 as if she was entitled to
allowances and increments during the period from 5.6.2000 to
31.10.2007. This would result in stepping up of her salary with grade
promotions and also the benefit of pay revisions. The petitioner relies
on Ext.P10 to contend that similar benefits are extended to the
Government school teachers. Ext.P10 states that untrained service and
training period of untrained teachers appointed after 26.2.1965 in
Government schools will be reckoned for notional increments with
monetary benefit from the date of acquiring training qualification.
WP(C) 10796/09 -: 6 :-
Chapter XXXI of the KER came into force on 5.12.1972. Therefore,
Ext.P10 cannot govern aided school teachers who are governed by
Chapter XXXI of the KER. The claim founded on Ext.P10 is in my opinion
plainly untenable.
For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in this
Writ Petition. It is accordingly dismissed in limine.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
ess