JUDGMENT

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)

[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking inter alia the following reliefs:-

(i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the letter no.

F.DE/DDE/SW-A/Z-19/21/934 dated 11.11.2021 issued by DDE (Z-19), Distt. South West -A, Vasant Vihar, letter no. 1/KES/RKP/2021/812 dated 01.11.2021 issued by the Manager KESSS; letter no. 1/KES/RKP/2020/587 dated

17.08.2020 issued by the Manager, KESSS and the letter no. 1/KES/RKP/2018/252 dated 26.11.2018 issued by the Manager, KESSS (Annexure P-1 to P-4 respectively)

(ii) To issue a further writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to grant promotion to petitioner as PGT (Hindi) w.e.f. the due date i.e. 20.04.2013/ 02.01.2024 with all consequential benefits.

(iii) To issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from convening the DPC for promotion to the post of Vice Principal till the petitioner is given promotion and consequential seniority as PGT (Hindi) w.e.f. due date i.e.

20.04.2013/02.01.2024.

(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to act upon their own letters dated 11.04.2018 and 16.06.2018 (Annexure P-5 & P-6 respectively)

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had joined the Kerala Education Society School which is a Govt. Aided school as Hindi Teacher in an Honorary capacity in the month of February, 1991 Subsequently by the letter dated 21.07.2001, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in respondent nos. 1 and 2 on regular basis.

3. Consequent to the constitution of DPC held on 22.01.2008, the petitioner stated to have been promoted as TGT (Hindi) in the pay scale of 5500-175-9000. It is stated by the petitioner that on 20.04.2013, the DPC was conducted for considering the petitioner for promotion as PGT (Hindi), however, the same was deferred without any reason. Subsequently, the DPC was held on 02.01.2014, however, the petitioner was not recommended since her qualification of Teacher Training was not found to be equivalent to M.Ed. degree. However, her juniors in other subject matters, were promoted in the said DPC. Thereafter, she gave a number of representations to the school as also the Directorate of Education.

4. By the letter dated 04.01.2016 the Directorate of Education had considered her representation and directed the respondent nos. 1 and 2 school to reconsider the promotion of the petitioner to the post of PGT(Hindi). Consequent thereto, the petitioner was promoted on

18.01.2016.

5. Thereafter the petitioner gave a number of representations both to the school as also the DoE, seeking promotion w.e.f. 02.01.2014 when her juniors in other streams were promoted and despite having requisite qualification she was not given promotion. Constrained by the inaction, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

6. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, under instructions, submits that the prayer is restricted only to the retrospective promotion on notional basis, for the purpose of being entitled to, if at all, for the MACP benefits.

7. This Court has heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 as also learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.

8. The controversy involved in the present case appears to be as to whether the petitioner’s qualification as “Hindi Shikshan Nishnat” obtained by her on 06.10.1989 was a decree which would be equivalent to the M.Ed Decree so as to fall within the essential qualification required for the post of PGT (Hindi).

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner had invited attention of this Court to the letter dated 11.04.2018 issued by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to submit that the petitioner did not lack in any essential qualification even as on 02.01.2014 since the letter does not indicate any change in the essential qualifications