IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 33 of 2009()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Petitioner
2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
3. THE PRINCIPAL, R.L.V COLLEGE OF MUSIC
4. THE SECRETARY,
Vs
1. ANTONY P.K., PANAKKAL HOUSE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :17/12/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A. No.33 of 2009
------------------------------
Dated this, the 17th day of December, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The respondents in Writ Petition (C) No.18930 of
2008, who are the petitioners in Review Petition No.1298 of
2008 are the appellants. The respondent herein was the writ
petitioner. The brief facts of the case are the following:-
The petitioner was a physically challenged person.
He was appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and
Subordinate Services Rules, (for short, ‘the K.S. & S.S.R.) as
Art Instructor in R.L.V. College of Music and Institute of Fine
Arts, Thripunithura from 8.1.1999 to 31.3.1999. The
Government decided to regularise the physically challenged
persons appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of K.S. & S.S.R. between
15.8.1998 and 15.8.1999. The petitioner was a beneficiary of
that order. When the Government published the list of such
persons as per Ext.P2 order dated 30.11.2007, he was also
included in it. He was serial No.18 in Ernakulam District, in the
list annexed to Ext.P2. Claiming appointment on the strength
W.A. No.33 of 2009 – 2 –
of Ext.P2, the Writ Petition was filed. In the meantime, the
R.L.V.College of Music and Institute of Fine Arts was upgraded
as a College and the post of Art Inspector was converted to
Junior Lecturer. The qualification prescribed for the post of
Junior Lecturer was degree in the subject concerned. The
petitioner was a diploma holder. Therefore, he was ineligible
for appointment. But, as no counter affidavit was filed in the
Writ Petition, the Writ Petition was allowed. The appellants
filed the review petition. The learned Single Judge took the
view that, if the writ petitioner was appointed in time, he would
have got appointment before the new Special Rules prescribing
higher qualification were introduced on 19.3.2008. If he was
appointed before that date, he would have got sufficient time to
acquire the higher qualification. Based on that finding, the
review petition was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the
respondents in the writ petition have preferred this Writ Appeal.
During the pendency of the Writ Appeal, pursuant to an interim
order of this Court, the writ petitioner was appointed as Art
Instructor (Junior Lecturer) by order dated 1.4.2009 by the
Director of Collegiate Education.
W.A. No.33 of 2009 – 3 –
In view of the above position, we think that the Writ
Appeal can be closed directing the Government to decide within
what time limit, the writ petitioner should acquire the higher
qualification, prescribed for the post as per the Special Rules.
Since the writ petitioner has already been appointed and as a
matter of fact, he was eligible to get appointment, we are not
interfering with the judgment and the order impugned in this
appeal. But, the Government will be free to fix the time limit
within which the respondent should acquire the higher
qualification in terms of the Special Rules. The Government
shall also inform the petitioner what will be his fate, in case he
does not acquire the qualification within the time so fixed.
The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.
Sd/-
P. Bhavadasan,
Judge.
DK.
(True copy)