IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31825 of 2008(L)
1. MANIKANTAN V.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PAULSON THOMAS
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :14/10/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.31825 of 2008-L
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2009.
JUDGMENT
In this writ petition, the petitioner who is working as HSST
(Politics), is aggrieved by the order Ext.P8 by which the request to grant
permanent exemption to him from acquiring B.Ed., as he is a Ph.D. holder,
has been rejected. Necessary facts for the disposal of the writ petition are
the following:
2. The petitioner is working as Higher Secondary School Teacher
right from 7.8.2000. He is having M.Phil and Ph.D. in the same subject.
His initial appointment was for the period from 7.8.2000 to 15.7.2001 as
HSST Junior in Political Science and thereafter he was appointed/promoted
as HSST with effect from 16.7.2001. Exts.P1 and P1(a) are the orders of
appointment and the order granting approval of his appointment. Exs.P2,
P2(a) and P3 are the certificates issued by the University of Kerala in
support of the qualifications acquired by him. The persons like the
petitioner were appointed pursuant to Ext.P5 Govt. Order dated 15.7.1998,
wherein it was provided that Ph.D. holders along with persons who have
passed M.Phil and JRF/NET will also be eligible for appointment as Plus
wpc 31825/2008 2
two teachers subject to the condition that they have to provide a written
undertaking that they will acquire B.Ed. within a period of three years. By
Ext.P5(a) order dated 28.10.2000, the Government has granted exemption
to Ph.D. hands from acquiring B.Ed. Again, by Ext.P5(b) order, the
teachers who were continuing in service as on 14.11.2000 holding Ph.D.,
were directed to be regulairsed in service without insisting for the condition
of acquiring B.Ed. By the same order, M.Phil holders were given time to
acquire B.Ed. The said period was extended further by Ext.P6. The
petitioner is seeking the benefit of Ext.P7, whereby some of the Ph.D.
holders who were appointed prior to the implementation of the Special
Rules with a condition to acquire B.Ed., were ordered to be regularised in
service after exempting them from acquiring B.Ed. degree.
3. But in Ext.P8, the view taken by the Government is that as B.Ed. is
mandatory for the appointment as HSST, the request of the petitioner is
inadmissible as per the Special Rules.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a
beneficiary of Exts.P5(a), P5(b) and P7 orders and persons who were
similarly placed having Ph.D. were exempted from acquiring B.Ed., were
regularised in service. The petitioners will not come within the purview of
wpc 31825/2008 3
the Special Rules, as he was appointed prior to 14.11.2000. It is therefore
submitted that the view taken by the Government is not correct.
5. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit in the matter.
The only question is whether the petitioner will come within the purview
of Exts.P5, P5(a), P5(b) and P7 orders. As already noticed, in Ext.P5(a), the
Government ordered that “Ph.D. holders are exempted from acquiring B.Ed.
for appointment as HSST.” This is dated 28.10.2000. The petitioner was
appointed on 7.8.2000. Ext.P5(b) order was passed after the decision of the
Apex Court in Dollichan’s case (AIR 2001 SC 216). The order is one
granting regularisation of appointment of HSST’s who were appointed prior
to 14.11.2000 and who have not acquired B.Ed. degree, but are having
Ph.D. It was directed that those persons holding Ph.D. and were appointed
purely on the strength of the Govt. Order dated 15.7.1998 which was
modified as per Govt. Order dated 28.10.2000 and were continuing in
service as on 14.11.2000, will stand regularised with effect from the date of
their entry in service without insisting on the condition of acquiring B.Ed.
It is important to notice that the petitioner was appointed prior to
14.11.2000 and was continuing in service as on that date. The later order
Ext.P7 is also important. Therein also, the persons who are appointed prior
wpc 31825/2008 4
to 14.11.2000 and having Ph.D., were ordered to be regularised in service
after exempting them from acquiring B.Ed.
6. In Ext.P8, the view taken is that the same has been ordered as a
special case. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it
will result in discrimination and will be in violation of Article 14. It is clear
that the Government has treated Ph.D. holders who were appointed prior to
14/11/2000 alike in the matter of granting exemption from acquiring B.Ed.
An important circumstance is that such exemption has been granted in
favour of persons who are appointed based on the executive orders issued
prior to Dollichan’s case (supra) and prior to coming into force of the
Special Rules. Therefore, the crucial aspect is whether they were appointed
prior to 14.11.2000 and were continuing in service as on that day. That is
satisfied as far as the petitioner is also concerned. Even though at the time
of appointment, he was not having Ph.D., he acquired Ph.D. in the same
subject later. The question therefore is whether any distinction can be made
on the plea that he acquired Ph.D. while in service. It is clear that the
intention of the Government is to grant exemption to Ph.D. holders who
were appointed prior to 14.11.2000. The orders are issued with the purpose
to achieve the said object. If that be so, the persons like the petitioner
cannot be singled out for a different treatment merely because Ph.D was
wpc 31825/2008 5
acquired after 14/11/2000. The reliance placed on the Special Rules, in
Ext.P8 therefore hold good. The date of appointment and the fact that he is
continuing as on 14.11.2000 alone are important. The Special Rules were
notified only on 12.11.2001. The persons who were benefited by Ext.P7,
were also continuing without acquisition of B.Ed. There is nothing to
distinguish them with the petitioner. All are in the same footing.
7. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition.
Ext.P8 is quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled for exemption
from acquiring B.Ed. and for regularisation in service with effect from his
date of appointment, i.e. 7.8.2000. Appropriate orders will be passed by the
respondents as above, within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be a further direction to
disburse the salary from time to time and arrears shall be disbursed within
two months of passing the order granting regularisation in service. No
costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/