Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
ANNIE ANTONY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/40381/2003
Qualification - Teacher Employment - Government Order Section List - The court interpreted the Government's order regarding educational qualifications for teachers, affirming that qualifications obtained through distance education can be valid for appointments, supporting the petitioner's reinstatement based on previous case law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Higher Secondary School Teacher, challenged a government order requiring a B.Ed qualification acquired through regular study. She had previously been reinstated after being wrongfully dismissed and contended that her distance education qualification was sufficient as per earlier legal precedent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of her distance learning qualification, citing a precedent that validated such qualifications for regularization. It directed the government to regularize her service period in light of her qualifications.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner's B.Ed degree, obtained through correspondence, met the legal requirements for her position as a Higher Secondary School Teacher as stated in the government order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized that the qualifications required for teaching appointments included those obtained through distance education, affirming that legal precedent supported the petitioner's claim for reinstatement based on her qualifications.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the government to regularize the petitioner's service period.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner at the time of filing this writ petition was working as Higher Secondary School Teacher in Commerce in the St.Therese Higher Secondary School, Shoranur. She passed the M.Com Degree Examination from the University of Calicut in the year 1983. After passing the M.Com Degree Examination she appeared for the B.Ed Degree Examination in Commerce (correspondence course) conducted by the Annamali University in December 1986 and passed the said examination in second class.
2. After passing the M.Com Degree Examination, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Commerce in the Providence Women's College, Calicut. The appointment was in the leave vacancy for the period from 15.7.1986 to 31.3.1987. The said appointment was approved by the University of Calicut as per Ext.P2 order. She had served as Lecturer in Commerce in the College for a total period of 8 years, 2 months and 15 days during the period from 15.7.1986 to 15.1.1996. She was continuously in service during the period from 23.1.1989 to 15.1.1996. Later, she was thrown out from service on 15.1.1996. Thereupon, she filed O.P.No.945/1996 before this Court and pursuant to the interim order passed on 12.3.1996, she was wpc:40381/2003 reinstated in service on 19.3.1996 as Lecturer in Commerce in the college. By Ext.P14, judgment the said writ petition was disposed of.
3. After the Higher Secondary Course was introduced in the State of Kerala, petitioner was relieved from the College on 20.10.1998 and she joined duty in St.Therese Higher Secondary School, Shornur in the forenoon of 20.10.1998 without break in service.
4. The present writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P25.
The petitioner possesses a B.Ed Degree in Commerce awarded by the Annamalai University by correspondence course. As per Ext.P25, the Government granted two years time from the date of the order for the petitioner to acquire B.Ed. qualification as mandated for the appointment as a special case.
5. The petitioner has filed a interlocutory application (I.A.No.1200/09) dated 18.1.2009. It is averred that she had been reappointed as Lecturer in Commerce in the Providence Women's College, Calicut. She resigned from the post of HSST (Commerce) on 31.7.2007 and joined as Lecturer in Commerce in the Providence women's College, Calicut on 1.8.2007. She wpc:40381/2003 had worked as HSST in the St.Theresa's Higher Secondary School, Shornur from 21.10.1998 to 31.7.2007.
6. The question is whether the view taken in Ext.P25 that the petitioner does not possess B.Ed degree acquired through regular course of study is illegal or not. At the time of her appointment qualifications were prescribed as per Government Order Ext.P15 dated 27.6.1990. The educational qualification prescribed for Higher Secondary School Teachers was second class Master's Degree in the concerned subject with B.Ed. The petitioner contends that the qualification acquired by distance education is a sufficient qualification for the post of HSST coming within the purview of the said Government Order . This question was considered by this Court inState of Kerala Vs.Suja Kumar ( 2006(1) KLT 846 ). It was held that the persons who have acquired qualification through distance education by correspondence course are entitled to regularisation and that it is not necessary that they should possess B.Ed. Degree recognised by the Universities in Kerala.
The amendment of the Rules is subsequent to her appointment in the year 2001. As on the date of appointment wpc:40381/2003 the stipulations contained in Ext.P15 Government Order are applicable. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the dictum laid down in the above quoted judgment inState of Kerala vs. Suja Kumar (supra). Now the petitioner has gone back to her parent institution and all that required is for a direction to the Government to regularise the period between 21.10.1998 to 31.7.2007. Therefore, appropriate orders shall be passed by the respondents within a period of three
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
