Quashed

K.B.Krishnaraj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jul 2022WP(C)/15649/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a school teacher with an MA in English and SET qualification, sought approval for appointment as HSS Communicative English teacher. The High Court quashed the rejections, noting inconsistencies where similarly placed teachers were approved, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P13 and P19 quashed; matter remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh orders within two months.

K.B.Krishnaraj Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 15649 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 15649 OF 2021

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

K.B.KRISHNARAJ AGED 45 YEARS S/O.K.BABU, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER(HSST), COMMUNICATIVE ENGLISH, MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAYYANAD,KOLLAM, RESIDING AT SREEBA, THEKKEVILA(P.O), KOLLAM, PIN-691016.

¶9

BY ADVS. GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL M.S.VIJAYACHANDRA BABU N.P.PRAJEESH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION(B)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 2 THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION REGIONAL OFFICE,4TH FLOOR, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033.

¶12

WP(C) NO. 15649 OF 2021

¶13

¶14

4 THE MANAGER MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAYYANAD,KOLLAM, PIN-691303. BY ADV T.S.RAJASENAN

¶15

SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 15649 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner states that he was appointed as UPSA in the Mayyanad Higher Secondary School as per Ext.P7 appointment order dated 06.06.2001. He was later promoted as HSA in English on 28.01.2003 as is evident from Ext.P8 order.

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner that he has passed a B.Ed. degree in English language and Literature from the University of Kerala as is evident from Ext.P1. Later, he pursued his MA degree in English at the Madurai Kamaraj University and secured a degree on 02.03.2010 as is evident from Ext.P2. The petitioner asserts that the University of Kerala has issued Exhibit P3 certificate certifying that the MA degree in English (Distance Education) of the Madurai Kamaraj University is recognized by the University of Kerala as equivalent to the MA degree in English language and literature of the Kerala University. The petitioner states that he has passed the State Eligibility Test in English as is evident from Ext.P4. He has also passed a certificate program in Communicative English conducted by the University of Kerala which fact is evident from Ext.P5. He also states that he has passed the Diploma course in English for Communication from the University of Kerala as is evident from Ext.P6.

¶22

WP(C) NO. 15649 OF 2021

¶23

¶24

According to the petitioner, the qualification prescribed for appointment as Higher Secondary School teacher in Communicative English is 50% marks in Post Graduation in Communicative English from any recognized University with B.Ed. and a pass in the State Eligibility Test. Recognizing his qualification, the Manager appointed the petitioner herein as Higher Secondary School Teacher in Communicative English by transfer on 8.10.2013. However, the proposal was rejected by the 3rd respondent on the ground that the petitioner did not have Post-graduation in Communicative English.

¶25

4. The petitioner asserts that the Manager has preferred an appeal

¶26

before the 2nd respondent and the same was also rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not qualified. According to the petitioner, taking note of the fact that no Post Graduate courses in Communicative English are conducted by any of the Universities in Kerala, the Government has amended the qualification for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher as MA Communicative English or MA English, with not less than 50% marks from any of the UGC recognized Universities. Ext.P10 is the order dated 04.06.2018 as per which the Government has amended the qualification of Higher Secondary School teacher. In view of Ext.P10, the 4th respondent Manager approached the 3rd respondent and sought for approval of the appointment of the petitioner to the post of HSS teacher. However,

¶27

WP(C) NO. 15649 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P11 communication pointing out that Ext.P10 was not having a retrospective effect and rejected the request. The petitioner states that on the strength of Ext.P10 order the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P12 order approving the appointment of the petitioner as Higher Secondary School Teacher in Communicative English with effect from 04.06.2018, the date of Ext.P10 Government order.

¶30

According to the petitioner, in respect of persons similarly placed as the petitioner herein the Regional Deputy Director of the Districts concerned has approved the appointments as Higher Secondary School Teacher in Communicative English with effect from the date of appointment irrespective of the date of amendment of the qualification issued as per Ext.P10. Reference is made to Exts.P14 to P17. In the said circumstances, the petitioner claiming similar benefits has submitted Ext.P18 revision petition before the Government. In the revision petition, the petitioner has pointed out the issuance of Exts.P14 to P17 by various Deputy Directors and requested that the petitioner is also entitled to similar treatment. However, by Ext.P19 order the request made by the petitioner stands rejected. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶31

I have heard Sri Gopakumar R Thaliyal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.T.S.Rajasenan, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

¶32

WP(C) NO. 15649 OF 2021

¶33

¶34

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent supporting the contentions of the petitioner.

¶35

Sri.Gopakumar, the learned counsel would refer to Ext.P15 dated

¶36

08.02.2012 and points out that the qualification of the person named therein Smt.Shabin Avalath, is MA (English), BEd (English) and SET. Approval was granted with effect from 06.12.2011 in the post and scale of pay as HSST (Jr) Communicative English. Similar is the case with others. According to the learned counsel, in that view of the matter, Ext.P19 cannot be sustained as the said order was passed without taking note of Exts.P15 to P17. The learned counsel would also refer to Exhibit P10 and it is submitted that the Government in paragraph 3 of the order has stated that insistence on PG qualification in communicative English has resulted in a situation wherein it has become difficult to find suitable candidates or to grant approval of the appointment of teachers who have already been appointed.

¶37

The learned Government Pleader submitted that the mere fact that the provisions were misinterpreted by the lower authorities in the case of similarly placed teachers is no reason to grant the benefits claimed by the petitioner. According to the learned Government Pleader, Ext.P16 order has no retrospective operation and hence, the request made by the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

¶38

I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶39

WP(C) NO. 15649 OF 2021

¶40

¶41

The materials placed before this Court shows that the petitioner has passed his B.Ed. Degree from the University of Kerala and M.A. Degree in English from the Madurai Kamaraj University and he has also qualified SET in English. Ext.P3 Certificate reveals that the M.A.Degree has been treated as equivalent to English Language and Literature Degree of the University of Kerala. The petitioner has also passed a certificate program in Communicative English and Diploma Course in English for Communication from the University of Kerala. His request for approval of his appointment as Higher Secondary School Teacher in Communicative English with effect from 8.10.2013 has been refused on the ground that he does not have a Postgraduate Degree in Communicative English.

¶42

I find from Exhibits P14 to P17 that the respondents have approved the appointment of teachers who do not have PG qualifications in Communicative English. There appears to be a considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that he has been singled against. While refusing the request made by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has not taken note of the grant of approval to teachers similarly placed as the petitioner. Furthermore, while passing Exhibit P10 order, the Government took note of the entire aspects and noted that none of the Universities in the State of Kerala are conducting courses in Communicative English and due to the paucity of qualified candidates, it has

¶43

WP(C) NO. 15649 OF 2021

¶44

¶45

become next to impossible to fill up vacancies or to grant approval to candidates possessing equal qualifications. It appears that none of these aspects were taken note of by the 1st respondent while rejecting the request made by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the entire matter requires fresh consideration at the hands of the 1st respondent.

¶46

In view of the discussion above, Exhibit P13 and P19 will stand quashed. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass fresh orders on Ext.P18 in the light of Exts.P15 to P17, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorized representative and the 4th respondent. Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

¶47

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

IAP

¶52

WP(C) NO. 15649 OF 2021

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15649/2021

¶55

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶56

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 27.07.2001.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 02.03.2010.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 27.07.2010.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.07.2010.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 21.04.2014.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KEARLA DATED 12.10.2017
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 06.06.2001.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 28.01.2003.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.11.2016.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 04.06.2018
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 01.11.2018

¶57

WP(C) NO. 15649 OF 2021

¶58

¶59

Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD 30.08.2019
Exhibit P13	TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DA	COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE TED 20.08.2020
Exhibit P14	TRUE COPY OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE,	ORDER ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE DATED 20.02.2014
Exhibit P15	TRUE COPY OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE,	ORDER ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE DATED 08.02.2012.
Exhibit P16	TRUE COPY OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CHENGANNUR DATED	ORDER ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, 18.09.2018
Exhibit P17	TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DA	COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE TED 03.07.2015
Exhibit P18	TRUE COPY OF THE 15.09.2020	REVISION PETITION DATED
EXHIBIT P19	TRUE COPY OF THE 17.06.2021.	GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED

¶60

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶61

Exhibit R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 15.07.2015 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

K.B.Krishnaraj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.B.Krishnaraj v. State of Kerala

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

Susan George Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan P. Vs State of Kerala

Tigi Christy Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Jyothi M Vs State of Kerala

Fr.Johny Sebastian, Vs the State of Kerala

The Manager Vs State of Kerala