IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1266 of 2008()
1. K.MAMMY , ASSISTANT TEACHER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
4. THE MANAGER, A.M.U.P.SCHOOL
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :09/07/2008
O R D E R
J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ.
=====================
W.A.No. 1266 of 2008
=====================
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher under the
fourth respondent school, which is an aided school, on
16.11.1981. At that time, he did not have training qualification.
According to him, he passed the training course (TCH) in 1983.
TCH course from Karnataka was not recognised as equivalent to
Teachers Training Course (TTC) in the Kerala State. But finally
the TCH course was accepted provided they undergo in-service
course conducted by the Department. The Government had
insisted upon the training course holders (TCH) from Karnataka
State to undergo an in-service course for recognition. He joined
the in-service course on 5.7.1981 and completed the same on
19.3.1982. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit only if he had
passed the in-service training course after obtaining valid TCH.
He passed the in-service before passing the alleged TCH from
Karnataka State. Further, he produced another certificate also to
the effect that he obtained another TCH in 1991. He got
statutory leave in connection with the TCH course and he passed
the same as per certificate dated 31.1.1991 and again after
getting the TCH he had completed the five months in-service
course conducted by the State Institute of Education on
WA 1266/08 -: 2 :-
31.5.1991 at G.T.T.I. Kannur. If he had passed the TCH course
and obtained a valid TCH certificate (not false) he need not have
studied again TCH Therefore, the learned Single Judge correctly
found that he underwent the training course and in-service
course only in 1991 and his service can be approved from 1991
onwards. The learned single Judge also noticed that the petitioner
cannot fall back on his 1983 certificate for the purpose of
claiming approval. We fully agree with the reasoning of learned
single Judge. Hence, we are not repeating all the reasons again
in this judgment.
In these circumstances, we see no ground to interfere with
the impugned judgment. The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
J.B.Koshy,
Judge.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
ess 19/7