The court determined that withholding the SET Certificate was arbitrary and required the relevant authority to reconsider the petitioner's case timely.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner’s husband died while he was in service. As 51B Claimant, the petitioner got Compassionate Appointment as Lab Assistant with effect from 01.06.2017.

2. While continuing so, the petitioner took LWA for two years for study purposes for doing B.Ed and P.G. simultaneously. In the meantime, the petitioner had applied for SET in English and admit card was issued and the petitioner appeared in the examination in July, 2024.

3. The petitioner has undergone B.Ed in English in the University of Calicut and the course was completed and examination was held in April, 2024 and the result was published in September, 2024 wherein the petitioner obtained First Class with Distinction. In the meanwhile, she has completed Master of Arts (English) from IGNOU in December, 2024. The petitioner has cleared the SET conducted in July, 2024, but her Certificate was withheld due to the non-satisfaction of Clause of 5.7 in the Prospectus of the SET.

4. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has undergone B.Ed (English) and Post Graduation in M.A (English) simultaneously. Clause 5.7 of the Prospectus for SET July, 2024 does not consider the issue in hand. In the said scenario, the petitioner is entitled to get SET Certificate. It is submitted that the SET Certificate of the petitioner is withheld by the LBS Centre. The petitioner sent a request to the Director to issue her SET Certificate.

5. As per Clause 22 of the Prospectus for SET July, 2024 any other items not specifically covered in the Prospectus will be decided by the Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Kerala and his decision shall be final. In the light of Clause 22, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Government requiring to issue SET Certificate of the petitioner considering it as a special case as it was not contained in the Prospectus.

6. It is further submitted that the application for the post of HSST was called for and the petitioner has applied. Without obtaining the original SET Certificate, the petitioner could not appear for the examination. She is aged 42 years and denial of the SET Certificate would permanently deprive her of future opportunities, as she would become over-aged for subsequent HSST selections, contends the petitioner.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

8. The petitioner would urge that the action of the respondents in withholding the State Eligibility Test (SET) Certificate of the petitioner, despite her having successfully cleared the SET conducted in July, 2024, is highly arbitrary and illegal.

9. From the pleadings, I find that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 representation in this regard. In the facts of the case, it would be only just and proper that the 1^st respondent considers Ext.P7 and passes appropriate orders thereon within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months.

Sd/-