The denial of benefits based on temporal qualifications is unjustifiable when similar exemptions are granted to others.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, Principal of an Aided Higher Secondary School, who retired from service on 31.05.2022, has approached this Court seeking to challenge Ext.P11 order and also seeking a declaration that he is entitled to exemption from acquiring the test qualifications as he has already attained 50 years of age, at the time he was promoted as Principal, in view of Ext.P9 Judgment of this Court dated 20.02.2023 in W.P. (C) No.30668 of 2019.

2. I have heard Sri.Poovamulle Parambil Abdul Kareem , the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

3. This Court notices that, in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner had specifically pointed out that benefits were being extended to the Principals of Higher Secondary Schools who were similarly situated. The petitioner had therefore contended that he was being subjected to discrimination. Taking this contention into account, while passing Ext.P9 judgment, the Government was specifically directed to advert to the said aspect. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order at Ext.P11 was issued, essentially holding that although the exemption had been extended, since no retrospectivity was provided, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit, as he had been appointed prior to the grant of exemption on 01.06.2016.

4. This Court, however, notices that under Ext.P9 judgment, the Government was specifically directed to consider the issue of discrimination raised by the petitioner. That question has not been specifically addressed in Ext.P11. On the face of the above, this Court further notices that as per the Government Order dated 12.07.2023, exemption with reference to the provisions of Rule 13 B of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules , 1958, Part II (for short, ' KS & SSR'), has been extended to the Principals of aided Government Higher Secondary Schools. That being so, I am of the opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the Government while issuing Ext.P11 may not be proper. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

This writ petition would, therefore, stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P11. There will be a declaration to the effect that the petitioner would also be entitled to the benefits prescribed pursuant to the Government Order at Ext.P10. The petitioner's probation is to be declared on the basis of the above declaration by the 3^rd respondent, and his increments as well as the service benefits are to be disbursed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

Sd/-