IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6799 of 2007(H)
1. M. JACULINE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
3. THE MANAGER,
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
For Petitioner :SRI.D.KISHORE
For Respondent :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :21/10/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 6799 OF 2007 (H)
====================
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P8 and P10 orders.
On 1/6/99, petitioner was appointed as an HSA in Malayalam. Ext.P1 in
this writ petition is an interim order passed by the Apex Court regulating
the appointment of HSST’s on an adhoc basis. That was implemented by
the Government as per Ext.P2. Subsequently, Exts. P3 and P4 orders were
also issued by the Government in view of the Apex Court judgment dated
14/11/2000, in Dolichan’s case and by Ext.P4, pass in SET Examination
was made mandatory for the appointments made from 14/11/2000
onwards.
2. According to the petitioner, vacancy of HSST(Malayalam)
arose in the 3rd respondent school w.e.f. 1/6/2000 and the petitioner was
appointed by Ext.P5 w.e.f. 13/11/2000. However, it is contended that in
order to deprive her of the benefit of exemption of SET qualification, the
date of appointment was corrected and was made 24/11/2000 and
accordingly, the matter was sent for approval. As a result of this
correction, it is stated that the petitioner lost the benefit of exemption
from acquiring the SET qualification which was available only to
WPC 6799/07
:2 :
appointments made till 14/11/2000. Finally her appointment was
approved by Ext.P13 w.e.f. 14/11/2006, when she passed SET
examination. It is in this background that the petitioner now claims that
her appointment ought to be approved atleast w.e.f. 13/11/2000, giving
her the benefit of exemption that was allowed by the government
following the Supreme Court order in Dolichan’s case and implemented by
Ext.P4 order dated 17/12/2001.
3. The issue was considered by the Director of Higher Secondary
Education in Ext.P8 and that order was challenged before this court in OP
22867/2002. The original petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment
directing that the matter shall be reconsidered by the Government if the
petitioner makes a representation in that behalf. Accordingly, the
petitioner moved the Government and the Government reconsidered the
matter and issued Ext.P10. In Ext.P10, though the claim of the petitioner
stands negatived, but however, the petitioner’s contention that her
appointment was initially effective from 13/11/2000 has not been adverted
to. As already noticed, the case of the petitioner is that her appointment
was against the vacancy of HSST (Malayalam) which arose w.e.f. 1/6/2000
and her appointment is liable to be approved effective from 13/11/2000,
WPC 6799/07
:3 :
she being eligible for exemption from acquisition of SET qualification.
4. From Ext.P10, I notice that this issue has not been considered
by the 1st respondent. It being a factual issue, necessarily an adjudication
with reference to the appointment order and other related documents is
called for.
5. In my view, since the whole claim of the petitioner depends
upon her assertion that the effective date of her appointment is
13/11/2000, this certainly is a matter for the 1st respondent to consider.
In order to enable the 1st respondent to reconsider the actual effective
date of her appointment as above, I quash Ext.P10 and direct that the 1st
respondent shall reconsider the matter on the production of a copy of this
judgment along with a proper representation by the petitioner in this
behalf. Thereupon the 1st respondent shall decide the matter with notice
to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and complete the process as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a
copy of this judgment along with a representation.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp