IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1444 of 2008()
1. V.V.SANGEETHA, SUMA SADANAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULED TRIBES DEV.
3. SRI.E.AYYAPPAN, DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED
4. PRINCIPAL, DR.AMBEDKAR VIDYA NIKETHAN
5. SRI.SREEKUMAR, GRADUATE TEACHER(HINDI)
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHANDAS
For Respondent :SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :13/08/2010
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
WA.No.1444 of 2008.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Gopinathan, J.
The writ appellant was appointed as a Hindi Graduate
Teacher in Dr.Ambedkar Vidya Niketan CBSE Model
Residential School, Njaraneeli on contract basis from 14-6-
2005 to 31-3-2006 by Ext.P1 order of appointment. She
was again appointed for another one year from 1-6-2006 to
31-3-2007 by Ext.P2 order. Thereafter she was again
appointed from 1-6-2007 to 31-3-2008 by Ext.P3 order.
Ext.P7 is an agreement executed between the appellant and
the first respondent. While working so, the writ appellant
availed maternity leave from 3-7-2007 to 31-10-2007. After
delivery, on request of the 4th respondent, the writ appellant
reported for duty on 19-9-2007, but she was not allowed to
work. On 1-11-2007, Ext.P13 order was served upon the
WA.No.1444/2008.
-: 2 :-
writ appellant by the 2nd respondent terminating her
service by stating that the writ appellant didn’t have the
required qualification as provided in the CBSE bye-laws.
2. According to the writ appellant, she had
sufficient qualification as evidenced by Exts.P8 and P9 and
that the termination of the service of the writ appellant
was arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. Seeking a writ
declaring that the writ appellant was eligible to continue in
service upto 31-3-2008 and for a writ of mandamus
directing respondents 2 and 4 to permit the writ appellant
to resume duty and also for granting maternity leave
benefits, WP(C)No.33724/2007 was filed.
3. The learned single Judge arrived at a finding that
the writ appellant had no required educational
qualification. Hence the learned single Judge declined to
quash Ext.P13. However, the respondents were directed
to pay leave salary and other benefits during the maternity
leave period. Ext.P7 stipulates payment of two months
salary in the event the contract is terminated without
WA.No.1444/2008.
-: 3 :-
sufficient notice. The notice pay was also declined by the
learned single Judge for the reason that the service of the
appellant was terminated as she was having no required
qualification. Assailing the above judgment dated 6-6-
2008, this appeal was preferred.
4. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the Spl.Govt.Pleader Sri.T.Santhosh Kumar.
5. Admittedly, the writ appellant was appointed by
Ext.P3 only for the academic year commencing from 1-6-
2007 and that was expired on 31-3-2008. The period of
contract is over. So, the writ appellant is not entitled to be
resumed in service any further. Consequently, the writ
appellant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for on that
ground.
6. According to the learned counsel for the writ
appellant, the writ appellant has passed Hindi
Sahithyacharya which is equivalent to graduate degree in
Hindi and she is holder of Acharya certificate in Hindi
which is equivalent to training certificate. In support of
WA.No.1444/2008.
-: 4 :-
that argument the learned counsel had canvassed our
attention to Ext.P5, a copy of the notification issued by the
Kerala Public Service Commission for the post of High
School Assistant in various schools in different districts in
the State. Ext.P5 would show that Sahithyacharya
certificate as well as Acharya certificate are treated as
equivalent to degree and training for employment as
graduate Hindi Teacher in State service. Ext.P5 would not
help the writ appellant as it is only relating to the
appointment to the post of High School Assistant in the
State syllabus and not under CBSE rule or bye-law.
However, since the term of appointment of the writ
appellant is over, we find that it is not at all necessary to
have an adjudication on that aspect. So, we leave open
that dispute for resolution in appropriate proceedings in
appropriate time in the event it is so warranted.
7. The learned counsel for the writ appellant
submitted that as per Ext.P7, the writ appellant is entitled
to notice pay in the event service is terminated before the
WA.No.1444/2008.
-: 5 :-
contractual term. As we mentioned earlier that it is
declined by the learned single Judge for the reason that
her service was terminated as she was having no required
qualification. Going by Ext.P7, we fail to find such any
stipulation in the agreement. It is not disputed that the
writ appellant was initially appointed by Ext.P1 after
scrutinizing her qualification. This is not a case of total
lack of qualification, but a case of technical objection, that
too, without affording an opportunity to explain. In the
above circumstance, there is no justification in declining
the notice pay, even if the service of the writ appellant was
terminated stating that the appellant had no required
qualification. Irrespective of the reason for termination,
the writ appellant is entitled to a writ to grant notice
pay. The writ appellant is entitled to succeed to that
extent. The learned single Judge had gone erred in
declining notice pay.
In the result, this writ appeal is allowed in part.
While modifying the judgment impugned, we declare that
WA.No.1444/2008.
-: 6 :-
the writ appellant is entitled to notice pay in addition to
the salary and other benefits during the leave period. No
order as to costs.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
(Judge)
P.S.GOPINATHAN,
(Judge)
Kvs/-