IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
Surekha.K, W/o Surendran.P. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) No. 36841 of 2023
Decided on : 25-06-2024
QUALIFICATIONS - Promotion of Teachers - Kerala Education Act, Rule 43, Government Orders Ext.P3, Ext.P4 - The court examined the qualifications required for the appointment of High School Teachers (HST) in Social Science, referencing the Kerala Education Act and various government orders. It highlighted that the qualifications must be met at the time of the vacancy's occurrence, and the 6th respondent did not possess the necessary qualifications as per the latest government orders, leading to the conclusion that her promotion was not legally sustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a U.P.S.T. with qualifications in Social Science, challenged the promotion of the 6th respondent, who lacked the necessary qualifications for HST (Social Science) as per the latest government orders. The petitioner argued that the 6th respondent's qualifications in Commerce did not meet the requirements set forth in the relevant government orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 6th respondent did not possess the required qualifications at the time the vacancy arose. It emphasized that the qualifications must be met at the time of the vacancy's occurrence, and since the 6th respondent's qualifications were excluded by the latest government order, her promotion was deemed invalid.
Issues: Whether the 6th respondent had the necessary qualifications to be appointed as HST (Social Science) and whether the promotion was in accordance with the relevant rules and government orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the qualifications for promotion must be assessed at the time the vacancy arises. The 6th respondent did not have the required qualifications as per the government orders in effect at that time, thus invalidating her promotion.
Final Decision: The court set aside the promotion of the 6th respondent and directed her reversion to her previous post as U.P.S.T. The petitioner was to be promoted to HST (Social Science) if otherwise eligible, with orders to be issued within one month.
JUDGMENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
This Writ Petition is submitted by the petitioner, who is working as U.P.S.T. in the School managed by the 5th respondent, being aggrieved by the promotion granted to the 6th respondent as H.S.T.(Social Science). According to the petitioner, the 6th respondent lacks necessary qualifications as prescribed, to be appointed as H.S.T. (Social Science).
2. The facts which led to the filing of this Writ Petition are as follows: The petitioner is a holder of Degree and Post Graduation in Economics with B.Ed in Social Science and K.TET 3 in Social Science. Based on the qualifications, she was appointed as U.P.S.T. in the School by the 5th respondent on 12.06.2018, and as per Ext.P1, the appointment was also approved. The 6th respondent was also working as a U.P.S.T. in the said School, and she is a Post Graduate in Commerce. She also possesses a degree in Commerce. She does not have K.TET 3 for teaching Social Science in High School classes, but she possesses SET qualification in Commerce, a mandatory qualification for teaching for the Higher Secondary section. Consequent to the retirement of the Headmistress on 31.05.2023, Sri. Gireeshkumar P.C., the senior most teacher working as HST (Social Science) in the said school, has been promoted and posted as Headmaster in the said School on 1.6.2023. Thereupon, a vacancy of H.S.T. (Social Science) arose and the petitioner submitted a request for promotion as she was the senior-most among the qualified UPSTs in the School at the relevant time. However, without considering the claim of the petitioner, the 5th respondent appointed the 6th respondent as HST (Social Science).
3. According to the petitioner, even though the qualification of Degree and Post Graduation in Commerce was treated as an essential qualification for HST initially, later, as per Ext.P3 Government order dated 21.09.2022, the qualifications of Degree and B.Ed in Commerce and Music, were excluded from the essential qualifications for HSA/HST(Social Science). Subsequently, Ext.P3 G.O.(Ms)234/2022 G.Edn dated 19.12.2022 was issued granting exemption in respect of certain classes of Commerce graduates and B.Ed holders. The said Government order is produced as Ext.P4. As per the same, the following categories of persons were exempted from the operation of Ext.P3 Government order the said persons are:
ii) The persons who had applied and attended the examinations on the basis of the notification issued by the Public Service Commission for filling up the vacancies of HSA (Social Science);
iii) The persons who have acquired B.Ed in Social Science after acquiring the degree in Commerce and Music and those already undergoing B.Ed in Social Science after acquiring Degree and B.Ed in Social Science.
iv) The persons who have acquired rights under Rules 43 51A and 51B of Chapter XIVA of KER before the date of Ext.P3 Government Order.
4. According to the petitioner, the 6th respondent, who holds a degree and B.Ed in Commerce, is not coming under any of the exempted categories as per Ext.P4 order, and hence is not entitled to be appointed as HST (Social Science). The Writ Petition was submitted in such circumstances challenging the appointment of the 6th respondent as HST.
5. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the 6th respondent wherein it was contended that as per Ext.R6(d) Government Order GO(Ns)No.141/88/G.Edn dated 13.09.1988, the Government has re-grouped the HSA in core subjects in which a degree in Commerce is one of the academic qualifications for HST (Social Science). In Ext.R6(e), the same was further clarified by stating that, as per Ext.R6(d) Government Order dated 16.02.2011, Commerce is an alternative qualification for HSA (Social Science). It was also averred that as far as the lack of qualification of K.TET is concerned, the same also cannot be a disqualification
The qualifications for promotion under Rule 43 of the Kerala Education Act must be satisfied at the time of the vacancy's occurrence, and any promotion granted without meeting these qualifications is....
Promotion must be based on qualifications existing at the time of vacancy, per Rule 43, regardless of later qualifications or exemptions.
Teachers over 50 years old are permanently exempt from certain qualification requirements under Rule 45B(4) of the Kerala Education Rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that promotions are to be made from persons possessing the prescribed qualifications at the time of occurrence of the vacancy, and the interpretati....
Promotion eligibility requires the satisfaction of qualifications at the time of vacancy, with amendments to rules applied retrospectively when appropriate.
Appointments must comply with stipulated qualifications; hence, prior erroneously granted approvals may be reversed to ensure adherence to legal standards.
Administrative orders rejecting teacher appointment approvals must consider prior Government Orders and the date of promotion, not subsequently introduced qualifications.
The relevant date for assessing the qualifications of the candidates is the date of creation of the post by the Government, and the prospective application of the post creation is illegal and unsusta....
Unqualified appointments in government schools are invalid unless proper qualifications are met, ensuring adherence to statutory rules.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.