Partly allowed

The State of Kerala v. Thara R.P.

Kerala HC15 Mar 2021WA/2344/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court examined an appeal against a single-judge order granting higher grade benefits. Court affirmed existence of two Assistant Director posts. However, it held the qualification equivalence issue, raised for the first time in appeal, involves serious state interest. It remanded the matter to the Government for merits determination following a show of cause proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Affirmed Single Judge's finding on existence of posts; remanded question of qualification equivalence to State Government for hearing and determination.

The State of Kerala Vs Thara R.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶6

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.464 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.09.2019 IN WP(C)NO.30090/2017(I) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE CENTRE ADVANCED PRINTING & TRAINING (C-APT), HEAD OFFICE COMPLEX, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695013,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶12

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING & TRAINING (C-APT), HEAD OFFICE COMPLEX, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695013.

¶13

BY ADV. SMT.LATHA ANAND RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT:

¶14

1 THARA R.P., TRAINING OFFICER, KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING & TRAINING(C-APT), TRAINING DIVISION, CITY CENTRE, PONNAPURAM, WEST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695024.

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.VARGHESE R1 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND R1 BY ADV. SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA SRI.B.VINOD, SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-02-2021, ALONG WITH WA.2344/2019, THE COURT ON 15-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶20

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶26

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶27

WA.No.2344 OF 2019

¶28

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.09.2019 IN WP(C) 30090/2017(I) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶29

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN WP(C):

¶30

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶31

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND & 3RD RESPONDENT IN WP(C):

¶32

1 THARA R.P.

¶33

TRAINING OFFICER, KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING AND TRAINING (C-APT), TRAINING DIVISION, CITY CENTRE, PUNNAPURAM, WEST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 024.

¶34

2 KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING AND

¶35

TRAINING C-APT

¶36

HEAD OFFICE COMPLEX, VATTIYOORKAVU,

¶37

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 013,

¶38

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶39

3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶40

KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING AND

¶41

TRAINING (C-APT), HEAD OFFICE COMPLEX,

¶42

VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 013.

¶43

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

¶44

R1 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA, ADV. SRI.V.VARGHESE R1 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO

¶45

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND, ADV. SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA R2-3 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA ANAND(B/O)

¶46

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-02-2021, ALONG WITH WA.464/2020, THE COURT ON 15-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶48

¶49

ALEXANDER THOMAS & K.BABU, JJ.

¶50

===========================

¶51

W.A No.464 of 2020

¶52

[ arising out of the judgment dated 24.09.2019 in W.P(C) No.30090/2017 ] &

¶53

W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶54

[ arising out of the judgment dated 24.09.2019 in W.P(C) No.30090/2017 ]

¶55

===========================

¶56

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2021

¶57

JUDGMENT

¶58

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶59

The Kerala State Centre for Advanced Printing & Training (C-APT) and the State of Kerala have filed the aforecaptioned writ appeals under Sec.5(1) of the Kerala High Court Act, so as to impugn the judgment dated 24.09.2019 rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C)No.30090/2017 filed by R1 in both these appeals.

¶60

Heard Smt.Latha Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A No.464/2020, who is also appearing for R2 & R3 in W.A No.2344/2019, Sri.B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellants (State of Kerala) in W.A No.2344/2019,

¶61

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶62

¶63

who is also respondent No.2 in W.A No.464/2020 and

¶64

Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay, learned Advocate appearing for R1 in both these appeals/writ petitioner.

¶65

The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Civil),

¶66

W.P(C)No.30090/2017 filed by R1 herein are as follows (see page

¶67

No.25 of the paper book of W.A No.464/2020) :

¶68

“i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to implement Ext.P7 Government order and grant the petitioner all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances w.e.f. 10.07.2004 and placement in the corresponding higher scales of pay from time to time, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶69

¶70

ii. grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including the costs of this Writ Petition (Civil).”

¶71

The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides has rendered the impugned judgment dated 24.09.2019 in the abovesaid W.P(C), whereby the main plea of the writ petitioner has been allowed by directing that the respondents in the W.P(C) shall grant higher grade benefits covered by Ext.P-7 order issued by the State Government and consequential benefits and fixation of pay in the corresponding higher scale, within two months, etc. It is this judgment rendered by the

¶72

¶73

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶74

learned Single Judge on 24.09.2019 in the above Writ Petition (Civil) that is under challenge in both these appeals.

¶75

Respondent No.1 herein (writ petitioner) is presently working as Training Officer under the appellant Kerala State Centre for Advanced Printing & Training (C-APT). The writ petitioner had entered service of the abovesaid organization as Assistant Training Officer on 21.11.1994 and she was later promoted to the present of Training Officer on 10.07.1996. According to the writ petitioner, she became eligible for the grant of the second time bound higher grade on 10.07.2004 in terms of Ext.P-4 G.O (P) No.3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998 issued by the competent authority of the State Government. Thereupon, the State Government has issued Ext.P-5 proceedings dated 16.06.2012 directing the C-APT to grant her higher grade with effect from 10.07.2004 in the scale of pay of Rs.6500-10,550/-. In Ext.P-5, the Government has ordered that the scale of pay directed to be given to the writ petitioner is Rs.6500-10,550/- and according to the writ petitioner, it should have been in the higher scale of pay of Rs.720011,400/-. Thereupon, the writ petitioner had filed Ext.P-6 representation dated 05.12.2012 before the Government pointing out

¶76

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶77

¶78

that the scale of pay proposed to be given to the writ petitioner as per Ext.P-5 was incorrect and that she is eligible and entitled for the scale of pay of Rs.7200-11,400/-. It was subsequently pointed out by the petitioner in Ext.P-6 that if the writ petitioner is given the benefit in terms of the lower scale of Rs.6500-10,550/-, as ordered in Ext.P-5, then her pay fixed for her would be lower than the position prior thereto and therefore, it will be unjust and unreasonable.

¶79

The Government after considering the submissions of both the petitioner and the C-APT, has issued Ext.P-7 G.O (Rt.) No.2298/2016/H.Edn. dated 29.08.2016 directing that the C-APT shall grant to the writ petitioner the scale of pay of Rs.7,200-11,400/- with effect from 10.07.2004. The claim of the writ petitioner in Ext.P-6 was to the effect that the writ petitioner is fully qualified to hold the next promotion post of Assistant Director and that the scale of pay of the post of Assistant Director with the abovesaid scale of pay of Rs.7,20011,400/- and that she is eligible and entitled for the grant of second higher grade in the post of Assistant Training Officer by placing her in the abovesaid scale of pay of Rs.7,200-11,400/-, in order to avoid stagnation in the present post. The said claim of the writ petitioner has

¶80

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶81

¶82

been accepted by the Government by the issuance of Ext.P-7 G.O dated 29.08.2016.

¶83

Thereafter, the C-APT has objected to the Government that there is only one post of Assistant Director, which has been re-designated as Assistant Director of Finance, for which the minimum qualification is M.Com and the desirable qualification is Associate Member of the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India (ICWA) and that the writ petitioner is not having the said qualification and therefore, there is no question of the writ petitioner being promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Finance). So there is no question of the writ petitioner getting second higher grade, as ordered by the Government in Ext.P-7.

¶84

The learned Single Judge has found that there are two posts of Assistant Director in the C-APT and that out of the said two posts, only one post of Assistant Director has been re-designated as Assistant Director (Finance), for which qualification is M.Com or ICWA and that the other post of Assistant Director is still available, for which the petitioner is fully qualified and that therefore, the main contentions raised by the C-APT that the writ petitioner is not eligible and entitled

¶85

¶86

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶87

to be promoted to the post of Assistant Director and therefore, she cannot make any claim for the second higher grade in the present post of Assistant Training Officer.

¶88

In the light of these aspects that the learned Single Judge has directed the respondents in the W.P(C) to grant the benefits of second higher grade to the writ petitioner in terms of Ext.P-7, within three months. In the appeal also, the learned Single Judge has mainly relied on Ext.P-8 proceedings to come to the considered conclusion that there are in fact two posts of Assistant Director in the C-APT, etc. (see page No.42 of the paper book of W.A No.464/2020) In these appeals also, the C-APT has taken up the objection that there is only one post of Assistant Director, which has been re-designated as Assistant Director (Finance) and that the writ petitioner is not qualified to hold the said post, as she is not having the qualifications of M.Com with degree in law or ICWA and that therefore, since the writ petitioner is not eligible and qualified to be promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Finance), which is in the scale of pay of Rs.7200-11,400/-, there is no question of the writ petitioner taking any claim for higher grade benefits in the present post of Assistant Training Officer, so as to secure

¶89

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶90

¶91

placement in the scale of pay of Rs.7,200-11,400/-, etc. In this appellate proceedings also, the C-APT has not referred to the vital aspects borne out from the documents as in Ext.P-8, Ext.P-2, Exts.P-12 to P-17 & Ext.R1(a).

¶92

Hence, one of the primary issues to be determined is as to the correctness of the fact findings made by the learned Single Judge that there are in fact two posts of Assistant Director in the C-APT and not one post, as contended by the C-APT. Ext.P-8 is the proceedings of the Board of Directors of the C-APT, which would clearly show that there are two posts of Assistant Director in the C-APT and out of that, considering the fact that lot of monetary transactions have occurred in the C-APT on account of the introduction of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, one out of the two posts of Assistant Director is re-designated as Assistant Director (Finance) with separate set of qualifications. A reading of Ext.P-8 would show that out of the two posts of Assistant Director, one post has been utilized for re-designating the same as Assistant Director (Finance), for which the essential qualification is Master’s Degree in Commerce with a degree in law from a recognized university and the desirable qualification is ICWA and

¶93

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶94

¶95

method of appointment is by direct recruitment, etc., whereas, the original post of Assistant Director is covered by Ext.P-2/Ext.R1(a) Rules. A reading of Ext.P-2/Ext.R1(a) would indicate that post of Assistant Director is shown as category No.3 therein and the essential qualification prescribed thereby are as follows :

¶96

First Class Degree in Computer/Electronics/Electrical/Mechanical Engineering or equivalent qualification from a recognized university. Desirable qualification for the said post is prescribed to be the qualification of First Class MBA from a recognized university/institute, etc.

¶97

A reading of Ext.P-8 on the one hand and Exts.P-2 & R1(a) on the other hand indicate that the original qualification prescribed as per Ext.P-2/Ext.R1(a) for the post of Assistant Director that has been revised for the second post, which has been re-designated as Assistant Director (Finance), with the qualifications as stated supra, as covered in Ext.P-8. Ext.P-13 minutes dated 23.12.1992 would show that the post of Assistant Director (Technical) by the method of deputation from the cadre of Lecturer of the Technical Education Department, etc. Ext.P-14 would show that the qualifications to the post of Assistant Director, is First Class Degree in Computer/Electronics/Electrical/Mechanical

¶98

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶99

¶100

Engineering or equivalent qualification from a recognized university and the desirable qualification is First Class MBA from a recognized university/institute and experience in developing curriculum materials for conducting and supervising exam duties, etc. The method of appointment to the post of Assistant Director as per Ext.P-14 is stated to be promotion from the category of Technical Assistant, Training Officers and P.A to the Managing Director. A comparison of Ext.P-2/Ext.R1(a) & Ext.P14 would show that the same deals with the abovesaid post of Assistant Director, for which the minimum qualification is First Class Degree in Computer/Electronics/Electrical/Mechanical Engineering, etc.

¶101

Further, from a reading of Ext.P15 Minutes would show that the C-APT had decided to create certain additional post, one of which is Assistant Director. It is the case of the writ petitioner that pursuant to Ext.P-15 that the second post of Assistant Director was sought to be created, which was later approved by Ext.P-8 issued in the year, 2000. Ext.P-16 is the proceedings of the C-APT dated 25.02.1997, which deals with the pay revision of the various posts in that organization and the post of Assistant Director is shown as category No.2 therein. Thus it

¶102

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶103

¶104

can be seen that the abovesaid materials, s per Exts.P-8, P-2/R1(a) and Exts.P-13 to P-17, Ext.P-16, etc. would show that originally there was only one post of Assistant Director, which has to be filled up on the basis of promotion from the feeder category and one of the feeder category was Assistant Training Officer and the qualification prescribed is technical qualifications of Degree in Engineering of the specialities mentioned therein. It was later, that the C-APT has decided to create yet another post and ultimately the same was approved as per Ext.P-8 in the year 2000. A reading of Ext.P-8 would make it manifestly clear beyond any doubt that by then, there were two posts of Assistant Director available in the organization and out of the two, one post was ordered to be re-designated as Assistant Director (Finance) with the qualifications of M.Com with degree in Law and ICWA, etc. Whereas, the original post of Assistant Director was on the technical side and it was the promotion post and one of the feeder category being the post of Assistant Training Officer, which is now held by the writ petitioner and the qualifications being Degree in Engineering of the specialities mentioned therein, etc. Therefore, in the light of these aspects, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge was fully right in

¶105

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶106

¶107

holding that there are two posts of Assistant Director in the C-APT and out of which, only one post was re-designated as Assistant Director (Finance), for which the qualifications are on the Finance side. Whereas, the original post of Assistant Director is still in existence and that it is to be filled up by promotion on the technical side, in the qualifications mentioned hereinabove. In the light of these aspects, we fail to understand, as to why the C-APT is even now contending that there is only one post of Assistant Director and there were no pleadings anywhere in the writ appeal to even remotely establish that the abovesaid fact findings made by the learned Single Judge on the basis of Ext.P8 are wrong or untenable. It is presumably based on the stand taken by the C-APT that the State of Kerala, who themselves had originally issued Ext.P7 in favour of the writ petitioner, has chosen to file the present writ appeal. Therefore, on the prime ground, we are of the firm view that the abovesaid objections raised by the appellants are untenable and unsustainable and the fact findings made by the learned Single Judge in favour of the writ petitioner, on the basis of Ext.P-8 is fully right and proper and does not deserve any interdiction.

¶108

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶109

¶110

At this stage, Smt.Latha Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants in W.A No.464/2020 would point out that the writ petitioner is claiming to have the qualifications of Masters Degree in Mathematics and Masters Degree in Computer Applications and that she is not possessing the qualifications of Degree in any of the specialities like Computer/Mechanical/Electrical/Electronics, etc. and therefore, she is not qualified to hold the promotion post of Assistant Director and hence, there is no question of the writ petitioner securing second higher grade benefits, which is the scale of pay of the promotion post of the Assistant Director.

¶111

The abovesaid contention has been raised for the first time by the C-APT. Even in this appeal, the main contentions and objections raised by the C-APT is that the writ petitioner is not eligible in terms of para No.(6) of Ext.P-4, inasmuch as there is only a sole post of Assistant Director, which has been re-designated as Assistant Director (Finance), for which he is not qualified. However, there is a very faint and feeble averment towards the end of Ground-C on page No.5 of the memorandum of W.A No.464/2020 that even assuming that there is a post of Assistant Director, the qualification is the same, as per

¶112

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶113

¶114

Ext.P-2 first class degree in Computer Engineering or equivalent, which the writ petitioner does not possess, etc. Thus it can be seen from a reading of the abovesaid pleadings of the appellant-Capt that even there, the appellants does not fairly admit the facts already found in favour of the writ petitioner by the learned Single Judge, as per the impugned judgment in the W.P(C). On the other hand, the feeble and vague averment therein is that even if it is assumed that there is a post of Assistant Director, still the appellant is not qualified, as what is required is first class degree in Computer Engineering or equivalent, etc.

¶115

Now we would take up the issue, as to whether the appellant is qualified to hold the promotion post of Assistant Director (Finance), as per Ext.P-2/Ext.R1(a). As per Ext.P-2/Ext.R1(a), the post of the Assistant Director is to be filled by promotion from among the feeder categories of Technical Assistant, Training Officer and P.A to Managing Director, etc. The technical qualifications for the said post is first class degree in Computer/Electronics/Electrical/Mechanical Engineering or equivalent qualification from a recognized university.

¶116

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶117

¶118

Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would point out that the writ petitioner has secured the one year Postgraduate Diploma in Computer Applications, after having completed the prescribed course of study in the Lal Bahadur Shastri Centre for Science & Technology, which is a Government of Kerala undertaking and after having passed the examination held in March, 1992 with second class, as awarded by the State Board of Technical Education, Government of Kerala and Ext.R1(c) dated 24.11.1992 is the diploma certificate issued in that regard. Further it is pointed out that the writ petitioner has also secured the three year Masters Degree in Computer Applications (MCA) awarded by the Madurai Kamaraj University with first class in the examination conducted in April, 2004 and Annexure-R1(b) is the degree certificate issued by the said university in that regard. Hence, it is pointed out that the writ petitioner has secured the two year M.Sc degree in Mathematics, one year Post-Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications awarded by the State Board of Technical Education, Government of Kerala as well as the three year Masters Degree in Computer Applications (MCA) awarded by Madurai Kamaraj University. On this basis, the learned

¶119

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶120

¶121

counsel for the writ petitioner would point out that the said qualification is equivalent or at any rate more than sufficient than the prescribed qualification of under Graduate Degree in Computer Science & Engineering from a recognized university. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has also placed reliance on a copy of the prospectus issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University laying down the minimum qualifications for admission to the post of MCA, wherein it is stated that the minimum eligibility qualification shall be a pass of not less than 50% in BCA (Bachelor of Computer Applications)/B.Sc in Computer Science/B.Sc Information Technology/B.Tech in Computer Science/Information Technology Degree. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the abovesaid eligibility conditions are the minimum eligibility conditions for admission to MCA, as per the State Government norms. State University norms as well as the AICT. On this basis, it is now contended by the writ petitioner that the qualifications of two year M.Sc Degree in Mathematics, one year Post-Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications and three year Degree in Masters Degree in Computer Applications (MCA) possessed by the writ petitioner, should be treated

¶122

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶123

¶124

as equivalent or at any rate, sufficient to the minimum qualifications of the prescribed undergraduate Degree in Computer Science & Engineering from a recognized university, etc.

¶125

The abovesaid submission of the writ petitioner is opposed by Smt.Latha Anand, learned counsel appearing for the C-APT on the ground that it cannot be said that the qualifications possessed by the petitioner can be treated as equivalent or sufficient to the prescribed qualification of undergraduate Degree in Computer Science & Engineering from a recognized university, etc.

¶126

After hearing both sides, we are of the view that this is matter, which should engage the serious attention of the State Government. It is that authority, which has ordered the grant of the benefit in question in favour of the writ petitioner, as per Ext.P-7. However, we make it clear and declare that the primary fact findings made by the learned Single Judge in favour of the writ petitioner that there are two posts of Assistant Director in the C-APT and that only one post has been re-designated to be utilized in the Finance side and that the other promotion post as above, etc., does not require any interdiction at the hands of this Court. The learned Single Judge did

¶127

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶128

¶129

not have any opportunity to consider the abovesaid pleas now presented before us, as this objection regarding the equivalence or otherwise of the qualification of the writ petitioner has been presented for the first time by the C-APT at this last stage of the appellate consideration. Accordingly, it is ordered that the matter will stand placed for serious consideration of the competent authority of the Government in the Higher Education Department, who may afford opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner and then may determine, as to whether the abovesaid qualifications of the writ petitioner, as per Exts.R1(b) to R1(c), would be treated as equivalent or sufficient to the minimum prescribed qualification of undergraduate degree in Computer Science & Engineering from a recognized university. The remarks and views of the C-APT may also be considered in the said process. The competent authority of the State Government in the Higher Education Department will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner through the authorized representative/counsel, if any and then may take appropriate decision on the abovesaid limited issue and it is found that the qualifications of the writ petitioner are acceptable, then it shall be ordered that the benefits in terms of Ext.P-7, shall be immediately released

¶130

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶131

¶132

by the C-APT in favour of the writ petitioner, without any further delay. Decision in that regard should be duly rendered by the competent authority of the State Government in the Higher Education Department, without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The State Government will seriously consider the matter and should seriously contemplate, so as not to disturb the beneficial order at Ext.P-7 taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, especially that a highly qualified person like the writ petitioner has been facing stagnation for a very long time. The directions and orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, will stand modified to the limited extent as above.

¶133

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Appeals will stand finally disposed of.

¶134

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

Sd/-

K.BABU, JUDGE

vgd

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶139

¶140

APPENDIX OF WA 464/2020

¶141

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶142

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE 17TH GOVERNING BODY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.10.2000

¶143

RESPONDENT/S ANNEXURES:

¶144

ANNEXURE R1(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE RULES OF ADVANCED PRINTING	RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR AND TRAINING(C-APT).
ANNEXURE R1(B):	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 10.01.1990 OF KERALA.	M.SC.DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY
ANNEXURE R1(C):	TRUE COPY OF THE 24.11.1992 ISSUED TECHNICAL EDUCATI	PGDCA CERTIFICATE DATED BY THE STATE BOARD OF ON.
ANNEXURE R1(D):	TRUE COPY OF THE 13.06.2007 ISSUED UNIVERSITY.	MCA CERTIFICATE DATED BY THE MADURAI KAMARAJ
ANNEXURE R1(E):	TRUE COPY OF T CERTIFICATE NO.11	HE DEPARTMENTAL TESTS 667/97 DATED 10.12.1997
	ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION.	KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE
ANNEXURE R1(F):	TRUE COPY OF T CERTIFICATE NO.76	HE DEPARTMENTAL TESTS 37/97 DATED 27.10.1997
	ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION.	KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE

¶145

W.A No.464 of 2020 & W.A No.2344 of 2019

¶146

¶147

APPENDIX OF WA 2344/2019

¶148

RESPONDENT/S ANNEXURES:

¶149

ANNEXURE R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SERVICE RULES OF KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING AND TRAINING(C-APT). ANNEXURE R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE M.SC.DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 10.01.1990 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. ANNEXURE R1(C): TRUE COPY OF THE PGDCA CERTIFICATE DATED 24.11.1992 ISSUED BY THE STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION. ANNEXURE R1(D): TRUE COPY OF THE MCA CERTIFICATE DATED 13.06.2007 ISSUED BY THE MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY. ANNEXURE R1(E): TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENTAL TESTS CERTIFICATE NO.11667/97 DATED 10.12.1997 ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. ANNEXURE R1(F): TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENTAL TESTS CERTIFICATE NO.7637/97 DATED 27.10.1997 ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

The State of Kerala v. Thara R.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Kerala v. Thara R.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.Vinod Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Aysha Kunjumohammed

Vijay Keshav Gokhale Vs K.S.Sindhu

State of Kerala, Vs Shibu E.V.

State of Kerala Vs Pradeep Kumar K.K.

Kerala State Centre Advanced Printing and Training Vs Thara R.P.