Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33064
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J
SEEMA SANKAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 10521/2011
Eligibility for appointment is determined by the rules applicable at the time of application, not by subsequent changes in rules or the date of appointment.
Headnote:
Education - Appointment of Teachers - G.O. 273/98 & G.O. 298/2000 - The court interpreted the eligibility criteria for HSST appointments, emphasizing that the relevant governing rules were those in effect on the date of the vacancy announcement, not the date of appointment, leading to the petitioner's approval.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, appointed as HSST in 2003, claimed eligibility based on rules effective at the time of application submission in 2000. The government contested her entitlement citing an exemption only applicable to those in service by November 2000.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed that the petitioner qualified under the rules in place when applications were invited. The timing of the appointment was not a barrier to consideration based on existing qualifications. Thus, it ruled in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could be considered for regularization of her HSST appointment despite being appointed after the implementation of new rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a candidate's right to selection is based on eligibility as of the application date, and not hindered by subsequent regulatory changes.
Final Decision: The court approved the petitioner's appointment as HSST from her original appointment date, ordering payment of all due salary.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner has been appointed as a Higher Secondary School Teacher (for short, “HSST”) in an aided school with effect from 17/11/2003. The vacancy to the above post was notified on 23/09/2000. The last date for receipt of the application was 30/09/2000. As on the last date for receipt of the application, the petitioner is fully competent to be appointed as HSST. The petitioner is having Ph.D. The candidates, who were having Ph.D were eligible for appointment as HSST without B.Ed Degree. The Government Order, viz. G.O.(MS).No.273/98/G.Edn., dated 15/07/1998 however, directed Ph.D holders to aquire B.Ed degree within a period of three years from the date of appointment. This order was modified vide G.O.(MS)298/2000/G.Edn., dated 25/08/2000 which stipulates that the candidates who have acquired Ph.D shall be treated on par with SET qualified hands for appointments as HSSTs in Government and aided schools. Thus, as on the last date of submission of the application, the petitioner is fully qualified to be appointed as HSST.
2. The Special Rules came into force with effect from 12/11/2001. There were several litigations relating to the appointment of teachers before the commencement of the Special Rules. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.Nos.7154-7155 of 1999, the Government issued order dated 07/01/2004 (Ext.P6). It was ordered in Ext.P6 that the HSSTs holding Ph.D., who were appointed purely on the strength of the Government Order dated 15/07/1998 and who were continuing in the service as on 14/11/2000, will stand regularised with effect from their date of entry in service without insisting the condition of acquiring B.Ed. Thereafter, the Government exempted acquisition of B.Ed in respect of certain HSSTs by Ext.P13 order. Petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the teachers who were appointed before 14/11/2000 were exempted from acquiring B.Ed., petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit for the reason that he was fully qualified as on the last date for submission of the application. The stand of the Government is that the petitioner was appointed as HSST only on 17/11/2003, that is, after the implementation of the Special Rules and, therefore, the petitioner cannot avail the benefit of the Government Order referred as above. The Government order referred as above are only in respect of the candidates who are in service as on 14/11/2000. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner's service can be regularised only with effect from the date of acquisition of B.Ed. which was on 07/07/2009.
3. The appointees acquire a vested right for consideration, in terms of the notification, for selection in accordance with the rule applicable at the time of inviting applications. The Hon'ble Supreme Court inN.T.Devin Katti and others vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others [ (1990) 3 SCC 157]
held as follows:
“A candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right of selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right of being considered for selection in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended rules are retrospective in nature.”
The above case arose from a recruitment to the post of Tahsildars in Karnataka Administrative Services. The notification was issued in the year 1975, inviting applications from in-service candidates for recruitment. This was in the month of May, 1975. Thereafter, the Karnataka Government directed the Karnataka Public Service Commission to prepare a fresh list of successful candidates by making reservations in accordance with the procedure contained in the Government Order dated 09/07/1975. The
