1. The petitioner, who is an Upper Primary School Assistant, has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) call for the records relating to Exhibits P3 & P4 and quash the originals of the same to the extent it relates to the prescription of additional qualification K.TET by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

(ii) declare that the petitioner is a fully qualified hand for the post of UPSA in view of Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXXI of the Kerala Education Rules.

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 4th respondent to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA in the 5th respondent's school forthwith. iv) pass such other order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The contention of the petitioner is that no additional qualification including test qualification can be insisted by the Government except by amending the provisions contained in Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI of KER. According to her, she is fully qualified as per rules in KER as on the date of his appointment. She claims that when claimants under 51A and 51B are granted exemption, she is also entitled to the same.

3. Even though NCERT is made a party, it appears that notice was not served on it as the case was being posted along with connected cases. Counter does not answer any of the contentions raised in the writ petition.

4. On direction by this Court, the learned ASGI has made available a copy of the notification dated 31.03.2010 published in gazette dated 05.04.2010, issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 23 of the Act, authorising the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) as the “academic authority” to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. The learned ASGI made available a copy of the notification issued by the NCTE also, issued on 23.08.2010 laying down qualifications for appointment of teachers for elementary education. The NCTE also issued further guidelines dated 11.02.2011 for the conduct of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET), etc. for recruitment of teachers.

5. I have considered the contentions raised by the petitioner in the light of relevant enactments and the recent judgment of the Apex Court.

6. Section 23 of the RTE Act reads as follows:

“23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.-(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher.

(2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five, as may be specified in that notification:

Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years.

(3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed.”

The impugned orders prescribing K.TET as qualification for appointment of Teachers have been issued in tune with the provisions contained in the RTE Act which is a central enactment. Education comes under entry 25 in the concurrent list. The qualification is prescribed by the NCTE in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 12 and 12 A of the NCTE Act, which read as follows:

12. Functions of the Council. – It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensu