IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33724 of 2007(M)
1. V.V.SANGEETHA, SUMA SADANAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR,
3. SRI.E.AYYAPPAN, DIRECTOR,
4. PRINCIPAL,
5. SRI.SREEKUMAR, GRADUATE TEACHER,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHANDAS
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :06/06/2008
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 33724 OF 2007
............................................................................
Dated this the 6th June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was appointed as Hindi Graduate Teacher in Dr. Ambedkar Vidya
Niketan C.B.S.E. Model Residential School, Elanchiyam, Njaraneeli. as per Ext. P1
order of appointment dated 14.06.2005. The appointment was on contract basis. In
Ext. P1, it is stated that appointment is purely provisional and that it would come to an
end on 31.03.2006. The petitioner was again appointed for the period from
01.06.2006 to 31.03.2007 as per Ext.P2 order dated 26.05.2006 on contract basis.
The contract was renewed for the academic year 2007-08 as per Ext.P3 order issued by
the Manager of Dr. Ambedkar Vidya Niketan, C.B.S.E. Model Residential School. Ext.
P7 is the agreement dated 01.06.2007 executed between the petitioner on the one part
and the Government on the other part. Termination of service is also provided in the
agreement. As per the agreement, the contract can be terminated at any time on
two calendar months notice in writing . Provision for termination of service even without
notice is also made in the agreement. While the petitioner was continuing in service
as per Ext. P7 agreement of employment, she availed maternity leave for the period
from 03.07.2007 to 31.10.2007. However, she joined duty on 19.09.2007. Therefore,
the actual period availed as maternity leave was from 03.07.2007 to 18.09.2007. On
01.11.2007, Ext.P13 order was issued by the second respondent-Director terminating
the service of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not have the required
W.P.(C) No. 33724 OF 2007
2
qualification as provided in the C.B.S.E. bye-law. The qualification prescribed for
Modern Indian Languages and Classical Languages is as follows:
“ii) Modern Indian Languages and Classical Languages (either
of the two)
i) a) Graduate in/with subject concerned or its equivalent
b) A recognised Degree/Diploma in education.
ii) B.A.B.Ed. with language concerned of the Regional
College of Education.
2. According to the petitioner, she has passed B.A. Degree, evidenced by
Ext.P8 certificate and therefore she satisfies the requirement of requisite qualification.
On a perusal of Ext.P8, it is seen that the course of study in respect of which Ext.P8 is
issued, is B.A. English Main and Hindi was only an additional language. Therefore,
Ext.P8 cannot be treated as a certificate for requisite qualification. The petitioner
contends that she has obtained Ext.P9 Sahithyacharya Certificate and that it is
equivalent to B.A. Hindi. In support of the same, she has produced Ext.P5 notification
inviting applications to the post of Hindi (HSA) by the Kerala Public Service
Commission. I am of the view that production of Ext. P5 notification is of no use in
treating the qualification possessed by the petitioner as equivalent to the qualification
prescribed by C.B.S.E. bye-laws. On a perusal of the documents produced by the
petitioner, it cannot be said that the reasons stated in Ext.P13 in arriving at the
conclusion that the petitioner does not have the required educational qualification for
the post is incorrect.
3. The relief prayed for in the Writ Petition is for issuing a writ of certiorari to
W.P.(C) No. 33724 OF 2007
3
quash Ext. P13 and to declare that the petitioner is eligible to continue in service up to
31.03.2008 in terms of Exts. P3 and P7. There is also a prayer in the Writ Petition for
issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to permit the
petitioner to resume duty in the school. Further prayer is to direct the second
respondent to grant the petitioner maternity leave for the period from 03.07.2007 to
18.09.2007.
4. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief Nos. 1 to 3 as prayed for in the Writ Petition. In so far as relief No.4,
for the grant of maternity leave is concerned, the petitioner relies on clause 7 in Ext. P7
agreement, which reads as follows:
“7. The party of the first part shall be eligible, subject to the
exigencies of public service, for leave salary under the rules
contained in Appendix VIII to Kerala Service Rules, as amended
from time to time.”.
Note to clause 2 of Appendix VIII of the Kerala Service Rules states that maternity
leave under rules 100 and 101 will be admissible to female officers appointed on
contract basis continuing in service beyond one year provided they would continue in
service but for proceeding on such leave. The petitioner could have continued in
service till 31.03.2008, but for termination of her employment as per Ext.P13 dated
01.11.2007. She had taken maternity leave before Ext.P13 notice was issued and
therefore, she satisfies the requirement for getting the maternity leave. The second
respondent shall issue appropriate directions for payment of admissible maternity leave
benefits to the petitioner for the period from 03.07.2007 to 18.09.2007 within a period
W.P.(C) No. 33724 OF 2007
4
of two months from today.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled to
two months’ notice pay. I am of the view that the petitioner would not be entitled to the
same since her service was terminated on account of lack of requisite qualification.
The Writ Petition is allowed only to the extent as regards the maternity leave and
it is dismissed for the rest.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk