IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28992 of 2008(B)
1. SHOUKKATHALI TAYYIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
3. THE DIRECTOR, LBS CENTRE FOR SCINCE
4. KERALA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA,
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/09/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 28992 of 2008
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated: SEPTEMBER 30, 2008
JUDGMENT
The claim of the petitioner is that the Acharya
Teachers Training Course in Hindi conducted by the Kerala
Hindi Prachara Sabha should be treated as equivalent to
Language Teachers Training and B.Ed. for the purpose of
appointment in the post of HSS Teacher (Senior) and
(Junior) (Hindi). The claim was taken up before the 1st
respondent and that has been considered in pursuance to
the judgment in WP(C) 21957/07 and 12201/07. The
Government have thereafter turned down the request as per
Ext.P8. It is challenging Ext.P8, this writ petition has been
filed.
2. As is evident from Ext.P8, the qualification
prescribed in the Special Rules for the post of HSST are
Masters Degree in the subject concerned with not less than
50% marks from any Universities in Kerala or
WP(C) 28992/08
2
qualification equivalent thereto with B.Ed. and SET in the
subject concerned. Admittedly what the petitioner
possesses is only Acharya Teachers Training Certificate in
Hindi as referred to above. It is praying that the
qualification obtained by the petitioner should be
recognised as equivalent to B.Ed. Degree, this writ petition
has been filed.
3. It is settled law that equation of qualification is
essentially for the appointing authority to do so and, it
being in the domain of a policy decision, the scope for
interference by a Court of law is very limited. In this case
dealing with the claim of the petitioner, the Government,
which is aware of the nature of the duties attached to the
post, have stated in Ext.P8 that the qualification possessed
by the petitioner is not sufficient for appointment as HSST.
Once the appointing authority has held that the
qualification possessed by the petitioner is insufficient to
hold the post of HSST, this Court will not be justified in
WP(C) 28992/08
3
holding the same to be perverse in the absence of any
material to arrive at such a conclusion.
4. The fact that the qualification possessed by the
petitioner has been recognised for the purpose of
appointment of UPSA and HSA, is hardly of any relevance
when it comes to equation of that qualification for the
purpose of determining the eligibility for HSST post.
Petitioner cannot contend that the duties which are
discharged by UPSA and HSA are same as that of HSST
appointees. In my view, there is nothing irrational or
perverse in Ext.P8 and the writ petition is only to be
rejected.
Writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mt/-