Qualifications for employment must be contextually interpreted with respect to current regulations and government orders.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner – a Grama Panchayat – is before this Court, seeking to challenge Ext.P10 Order issued by the Government, setting aside the termination of the 2^nd respondent herein, who was originally appointed as an Ayah in a BUDS school under the Panchayat.

2. The 2^nd respondent herein had been appointed as an Ayah in the BUDS school run by the Panchayat after undergoing the selection procedure. Later, steps were taken against the 2^nd respondent by the Panchayat for terminating her service since, according to the Panchayat, the 2^nd respondent did not have the required qualification, and there were other qualified hands. In such circumstances, the 2^nd respondent was before this Court in an earlier round of litigation by filing W.P. (C) No.25909 of 2021. This Court, by Ext.P3 Judgment dated 07.03.2022, took note of the stand taken by the Panchayat on the basis of the guidelines produced in this writ petition at Ext.P2, as also the stand taken by the 2^nd respondent herein with reference to a Government Order, and directed that the matter requires to be considered by the Panchayat with reference to the contents of the Government Order as well as the guidelines. Later, by the proceedings at Ext.P4, the 2^nd respondent was terminated since the 2^nd respondent did not have the requisite qualifications as per Ext.P2. The 2^nd respondent again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20963 of 2022, and by Ext.P7 Judgment dated 19.07.2022, this Court took note of the essential question to be decided – whether the guidelines or the Government Order would prevail with reference to qualification – and directed the Ayah - 2^nd respondent to approach the Government. On that basis, the matter was considered by the Government, before whom, the Panchayat also filed Ext.P9 objection, again repeating the stand that the 2^nd respondent did not have the requisite qualifications. By the impugned order at Ext.P10, dated 26.06.2023, the Government having decided to cancel the termination by Ext.P4, the Panchayat is before this Court through the captioned writ petition.

3. I have heard, Sri. T.H. Aravind, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. S. Shyam Kumar, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, as well as Sri. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The issue arising for consideration is whether the 2^nd respondent had the requisite qualification. The qualification, according to the Panchayat, is with reference to the mandate under Ext.P2, as per which a person is required to have studied up to the 10^th standard for being appointed. The Panchayat also seeks to rely on the Regulations as approved by the Government by Annexure R1(a) – Government Order dated 06.04.2013, which also states that the applicant should have completed 10^th standard. As against the afore, the 2^nd respondent relies on Annexure R2(a) – Government Order dated 07.02.2018, to contend that no separate qualification has been prescribed in the Government Order and therefore the findings in Ext.P9 cannot be upset.

5. I have considered the rival contentions as well as the connected records.

6. It is true, as contended by the learned counsel for the Panchayat, that the Regulation at Ext.P2 as well as the Regulations approved by Annexure R1(a) state that passing the 10^th standard is a must for being appointed as an Ayah. At the same time, in the year 2018, the Government issued Annexure R2(a) – Government Order dated 07.02.2018, wherein the Government specifically found that new guidelines were being introduced with reference to the afore Government Order. Though the learned counsel for the Panchayat states that the prescription as per Ext.R2(a) is in addition to what is stated in the Regulations referred to above, in my opini