Previous court rulings on the applicability of qualifications for teaching posts affirm that petitioner's appointment must be approved despite objections.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in Mathematics as per Ext.P1 order. She was rank No.1 in the ranked list. Initially, five appointments were made by the Management and the approval was declined by the University stating that the approval of Pre-degree category is not under them. Later, the Government directed to entrust the second respondent the power to grant approval of Junior Lecturers (Pre-degree category). Therefore, the Management forwarded all the papers of the five teachers, to the second respondent. The second respondent found that as per the workload, only two posts of Junior Lecturers are possible and the petitioner and Smt. Bindu Cleetus were retained and termination notice was issued to three other teachers. Ext.P3 is the letter issued by the fifth respondent. The termination was challenged by the three other teachers before this Court and this Court stayed the termination also. By Ext.P4, approval of petitioner's appointment along with that of Smt. Bindu Cleetus, was sought by the Manager.

2. In the meanwhile, the Government had issued orders deploying wpc 30205/2009 2 teachers in Pre-degree category consequent on the delinking of Pre-degree course from the colleges. The petitioner had requested to deploy her to one of the three Higher Secondary Schools under the Management. Since the approval as Junior Lecturer in the college under the same Management was not obtained, the Management was reluctant to deploy her as requested. The petitioner applied for selection to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher and she got selected also. As per Ext.P5 order, she was appointed as HSST.

3. O.P.No.17564/1998 was filed by the petitioner praying for disbursement of salary in the post of Junior Lecturer and an interim order was passed as per Ext.P7 and finally the said writ petition and connected matters were disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment . A direction was issued that the third respondent, in consultation with the Management, has to give appropriate position to the five candidates who were appointed as Junior Lecturers in Mathematics and approve their appointments.

4. After joining as Higher Secondary School Teacher, the petitioner had been filing several representations to get approval. Those have been produced as Exts.P11 to P14, P16 and P17. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the competent among the respondents to wpc 30205/2009 3 approve her appointment from 3.9.1996 to 11.11.1998 and to pay salary.

5. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. What is mentioned therein is that the petitioner does not possess the required qualifications prescribed by the U.G.C. to be appointed for Degree and P.G. classes. The proposal for approval of five lecturers in Mathematics including the petitioner, was returned as it was seen made against post sanctioned for M.Sc. Mathematics. The posts created for degree and post graduate after 1.1.1986 come under UGC Scheme and hence the candidates appointed against such posts should have the qualification prescribed by the UGC. It is also mentioned that the petitioner is a Junior Lecturer having P.G. with B.Ed. which is a qualification prescribed by the Government for Junior Lecturer for Pre-degree and P.G. classes.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above aspects have no relevance here, as the petitioner was appointed only for taking classes in Pre-degree. It is submitted that this Court has already allowed a writ petition filed by Smt. Bindu Cleetus who sought for a similar relief, as per Ext.P19 judgment . Apart from the same, learned counsel submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench, Ext.P8, covers the whole issues and the direction therein is to approve the appointment of five persons including the petitioner, which has become final. Therefore, wpc 30205/2009 4 the respondents cannot take a contrary stand.

7. In Ext.P19 judgment , this Court considered the aspect relating to the Government Order p