Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 61219
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
MONICA SILVESTER – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C)/12686/2021
K.C.ELDHO, M.MALLENATHAN, SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC, SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA, SC, NCTE, SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC, SURIN GEORGE IPE, SRI T S SHYAMA PRASANTH-GP
Educational qualifications can be recognized as equivalent based on government orders, contingent upon establishing equivalency through proper channels.
Headnote:
Equivalency - Education Qualifications - Government Orders - Sections 13.11.2018, 25.11.2003 - The court discussed the authority of government orders in determining equivalency of educational qualifications and emphasized the necessity for the petitioner to obtain an equivalency certificate per established regulations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner held degrees regarded as equivalent to B.Ed and M.Ed but faced denial of approval for her teaching appointment due to certification issues concerning her qualifications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the Regional Deputy Director's refusal was correct given the lack of an equivalency certificate, the petitioner deserves the opportunity to seek such certification, thus allowing her qualifications to be reconsidered.
Issues: Whether the petitioner’s qualifications could be recognized as equivalent to B.Ed and M.Ed degrees based on existing government orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that recognition of the qualifications hinges on obtaining an equivalency certificate as mandated by relevant government orders for proper assessment.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, directing the petitioner to seek equivalency certification.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26 th day of July , 202 2 .
The petitioner says that she is holding degrees in Hindi, awarded by the 6th respondent - which are called "Hindi Shikshan Parangath" and "Hindi Shikshan Nishnath" respectively. She says that, these degrees are equivalent or the same as B.Ed and M.Ed; and that this is evident from Ext.P5 order of the Government of India.
2. The petitioner says that she was appointed as a Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) Junior in an Aided School, namely, "Lourde Matha Higher Secondary School", Palakkad, based on her qualifications; but that when the Manager placed the papers for approval of the appointment before the Jurisdictional Regional Deputy Director (RDD), it has been refused through Ext.P14 dated 06.09.2019, saying that her qualifications are not equivalent to the ones prescribed.
3. The petitioner says that Ext.P14 is wholly improper because, Ext.P7 order of the Government of Kerala dated 13.11.2018, mandates that all the degrees issued by the institutions mentioned therein, including National Stand alone Institutions funded by the Government, will have to be recognized as being equivalent to the prescribed qualifications. She asserts that, when one reads Ext.P5 order of the Government of India - which was issued as early as on 25.11.2003, it becomes manifest that the aforementioned qualifications obtained by her are the same as B.Ed and M.Ed respectively, if not, equivalent to it. She thus prays that, Ext.P14 be set aside and the RDD be directed to reconsider the papers forwarded by the Manager for approval of her appointment, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
4. Sri.K.C.Eldho - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, in addition to the afore request made by his client, she has also prayed that the Public Service Commission be directed to issue an Advice Memo, based on her qualifications above, on the strength of her ranking in the list prepared by them for the purpose of appointment to Government Schools. He submitted that, however, taking note of the fact that she has already been appointed in an Aided School, she is not pressing the said relief for the time being.
5. On hearing Sri.K.C.Eldho on the afore lines, I asked Sri.Suvin R.Menon - learned Central Government Counsel, his views on Ext.P5, to which, he submitted that the Ministry of Human Resources Development has made it clear that the degrees mentioned therein are equivalent, for the purpose of employment under the Central Government, to the ones shown against it. He submitted that, therefore, going by Ext.P7, the petitioner may be entitled to seek that the qualifications enjoyed by her are equivalent to B.Ed and M.Ed respectively, if not the same. He submitted that, however, he cannot speak on this afÏrmatively and that Government of India will abide by any directions to be issued by this Court.
6. Sri.T.S.Shyam Prasanth - learned Government Pleader, submitted that, if Ext.P5 stipulates that the "Hindi Shikshan Parangath" and "Hindi Shikshan Nishnath" are equivalent to B.Ed and M.Ed degrees respectively of Indian Universities, then going by Ext.P7, the petitioner will certainly be able to apply to the competent Authority and obtain necessary orders. He submitted that, however, this will depend upon various other factors are necessarily to be complied with; and that the petitioner must, therefore, approach the competent Authority for such purpose. He then prayed that Ext.P14 be not set aside, since the RDD has acted correctly in the absence of any certificate having been issued by the competent Authority in favour of the petitioner based on Ext.P7; adding that, in any event, it has also asked the petitioner to produce an equivalency certificate before her appointment can be approved. 7. Before I close the narrative of the submissions of the various counsel for the parties, I must record that Sri.P.C.Sasidharan - learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, took specific objection against the relief soug
