Kerala High Court
Gayathri.R vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 20325 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
GAYATHRI.R
AGED 28 YEARS
D/O. RAJALAKSHMI K, VAISHNAVI, PATTANAKKAD P.O,
CHERTHALA.
BY ADVS.
K.MOHANAKANNAN
H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KODIVEEDU, ALAPPUZHA - 688001.
4 THE ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
THURAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688532.
5 THE MANAGER
SNDSY UPS, PANAVALLY, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688566.
BY ADV D.S.THUSHARA
SMT.ANIMA M, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.20325 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that she was appointed on 15.07.2021 as an
Upper Primary School Teacher in a retirement vacancy. However, the
approval of her appointment was rejected by Ext.P1 order on the ground
that she does not have the qualification as prescribed in G.O.(MS)
No.67/2018 dated 22.05.2018. The petitioner contends that she had
acquired B.S.c (Physics) and B.Ed in Physical Science from the University of
Kerala as is evident from Exts.P3 and P4. Thereafter she acquired KTET
qualification with Malayalam as Part III subject as evident from Ext.P5. She
also states that she had studied Malayalam up to the 8th standard in the
secondary section and reference is made to Ext.P6 in support of the same.
The petitioner also contends that an identical issue was under consideration
before this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 29317 of 2016. Upon consideration
of the said issue, by judgment dated 7.09.2016 the learned judge directed
to consider the appointment of the petitioner therein in the light of the
qualifications prescribed in the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Rules', for the sake of brevity) as the Government orders
prescribing qualifications cannot supplant the qualifications prescribed in
WP(C) NO.20325 OF 2021
the Rules. The above judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench as
evident from Ext. P11. According to the petitioner, the stand taken by the
respondent in Ext.P1 cannot be sustained in the light of the law laid down
by this Court in Ext.P10 and Ext.P11 judgments. It is in the afore
circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
(i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P1 and
quash the same.
(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 4th
respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as
UPST(Malayalam) in SNDY UPS Panavally from 15.07.2021 and
to grant consequential reliefs.
2. Heard Sri. K.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. Rule 3 in Chapter XXXI of the Rules reads as follows:
"[A pass in S.S.L.C examination conducted by the
Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent or
a pass in Pre-degree examination conducted by any of the Universities
in Kerala or any examination recognised by any such Universities as
equivalent to Pre-degree examination or a pass in a Higher Secondary
Examination conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary
Examination, Kerala or any other examination recognised by
Government as equivalent thereto and a pass in T.T.C. Examination
conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala;
OR a degree in any subject and B.Ed/B.T/L.T.conferred by or
recognised by the Universities in Kerala]"
WP(C) NO.20325 OF 2021
[Or a pass in Pre-degree Examination with pedagogy as an
elective subject conducted by the University of Kerala]
[Or a pass in Basic T TC Examination(Malayalam) conducted by
the Madras Government]
4. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel, the Division
Bench in para No.8 had occasion to observe as follows:
'8. What the learned Single Judge has held is only that
Government Orders prescribing qualifications cannot supplant the
qualifications prescribed by the Rules and that in the event of conflict,
the rules should prevail. There cannot be any doubt on the above
aspect, for the reason that the executive power of the State under
Article 162 of the Constitution of India has been made subject to, and
limited by, the legislative power conferred by the Constitution on the
State. Therefore, the Rule making power conferred by the Statute
would prevail over executive orders issued by the Government
wherever there is conflict between the two. The qualification
prescribed by the Government Orders can apply only to supplement
the qualifications prescribed by the rules, in this case in the KER. The
qualifications for appointment as a UPSA are prescribed by Rule 3 of
Chapter XXXI KER. As per the said Rule, in addition to a pass in
S.S.L.C.Examination, possession of a degree in any subject and B.Ed.
conferred by or recognised by the Universities in Kerala are prescribed
as sufficient qualifications. In view of the above rule position, no
qualification that has the effect for conflicting with the same can be
prescribed by a Government Order. Therefore, in so far as appointment
as UPSA is concerned, the Government Order Ext.P4 cannot supplant
the provisions of Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI of KER. The above aspect is
made clear.'
5. The principles laid down in Ext.P11 will squarely apply to the
petitioner. All that is stated in Ext.P1 is that the petitioner does not have the
qualification provided for in the Government order dated 22.05.2018. Their
WP(C) NO.20325 OF 2021
Lordship of the Division Bench had held that Government Orders
prescribing qualifications cannot supplant the qualifications prescribed in
the Rules and if there is conflict, the Rules would prevail. In that view of
the matter, Ext.P1 cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. There
will be a direction to the 4th respondent to reconsider the proposal for
approval in the light of the law laid down in Exts.P10 and P11 judgments
and take a decision expeditiously, in any event, within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
IAP
WP(C) NO.20325 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20325/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT NO.C/16260/2021 DATED
21.09.2021.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 67/2018 DATED
22.05.2018.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF B.SC
DEGREE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
DATED 31.08.2016.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF B.ED
DEGREE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
DATED 18.08.2021.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE KTET, RESULTS OF THE
EXAMINATION DECLARED ON 30.05.2020 BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
INDIRA JANARDHANAN VIDHYA MANDIR, DATED
22.09.2021.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ACHIEVEMENT RECORD SHOWS
THAT THE PETITIONER STUDIED MALAYALAM UPTO
STANDARD VIII.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) 534/2002 DATED
19.03.2002.
WP(C) NO.20325 OF 2021
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) 143/02/G.EDN.
DATED 4.6.2002.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION
NO. 29317/2016 DATED 7.9.2016.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL
NO. 135/2017 DATED 7.8.2017.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)962/2022/GEDN DATED
19.2.2022
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL
