2003 Supreme(SC) 284

2003(2) Supreme 517
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
Brijesh Kumar & D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
P.M. Latha & Anr. -Appellants
versus
State of Kerala & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1726-28 of 2001
Decided on 5-3-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Mathai M. Paikeday, C.S. Rajan, Sr. Advocates, T.G. Narayanan Nair, Robson Paul, K.V. Mohan, P.I. Jose, Ramesh Babu M.R., G. Prakash Advocate (NP), K.M.K. Nair, Vipin Nair, M.P. Vinod, A.K. Jain, Deepak Prakash, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
B.Ed. qualification for the post of Primary Teachers cannot be treated as a qualification higher than Teachers Training Certificate from a recognised institution.

Headnote:Posts of Lower Primary/Upper Primary Teachers in Govt. School of Kerala Govt.-Advertisement for selection calling for Teacher Training Certificate candidates-B.Ed. candidates included in the select list by Public Service Commission, State of Kerala-Single Judge directing preparation of fresh rank lists excluding B.Ed. candidates-D.B. maintaining the rank list including B.Ed. candidates-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether B.Ed. qualification can be considered as higher than TTC qualification? (No)-Whether D.B. was right in reversing Single Judge? (No)-Whether equity be leaned in favour of B.Ed. candidates appointed only provisionally?

       Held : We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondents that B.Ed. qualification is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore, the B.Ed. candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for the post. On behalf of appellants, it is pointed out before us that Trained Teachers Certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas for B.Ed. degree, the training imparted is to teach students of classes above primary. B.Ed. degree holders, therefore, cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools. Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or B.Ed. qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing qualification for post of primary teachers as only TTC and not B.Ed. Whether B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed. candidates, for the present vacancies advertised, as eligible. The division bench in the impugned order upheld the decision of the single judge that in terms of the advertisement, B.Ed. candidates were not eligible to take up the selection and to be included in the rank list. We fail to understand that having thus upheld the decision of the learned single judge what was the justification for the division bench to refer to statutory recruitment Rules applicable to teachers in private primary schools, aided by the Government and the judgments rendered by the High Court in their cases, for reversing the judgment of the Single Judge and maintaining the Rank List including names of the B.Ed. candidates and their appointments on the basis of rules yet to be framed. On behalf of respondents, it is submitted that since large number of B.Ed. candidates were allowed to compete and actual appointment orders were also issued in their favour, the division bench has tried to adjust the equities between the parties. Equity and law are twin brothers and law should be applied and interpreted equitably but equity cannot over-ride written or settled law. The division bench forgot that in extending relief on equity to B.Ed. candidates who were unqualified and yet allowed to compete and seek appointments contrary to the terms of the advertisement, it is not redressing the injustice caused to the appellants who were TTC candidates and would have secured a better position in the Rank List to get appointment against the available vacancies, had B.Ed. candidates been excluded from the selections. The impugned judgment of the division bench is both illegal, inequitable and patently unjust. The TTC candidates before us as appellants have been wrongly deprived of due chance of selection and appointment. The impugned judgment of the division bench, therefore, deserves to be set aside and of the learned single Judge restored. (Paras 10 to 13)

       Held consequently : The exercise of preparation of a fresh Rank List directed to by the learned single judge shall be undertaken and after fresh list is prepared by exclusion of B.Ed. candidates, if the appellants get the necessary rank against available vacancies at the relevant time, they would be given appointment and to make room for them, by terminating appointment, if necessary, of B.Ed. candidates who might have been selected in their places. Consequently, we allow these appeals. The impugned judgment dated 18.2.2000 of the division bench is set aside and order of the learned single judge dated 25.1.1999 is restored with the modification made above. Since the petitioners in the High Court and in this Court have been waiting for selection and appointment, so long, let the directions made by the learned single judge as modified by this Court be carried out with expedition and within an outer limit of four months. The appellants will also be entitled to get costs from the respondents State of Kerala with Counsel s fee as per rules. (Paras 17 and 18)