Kerala High Court
Srividya .P vs State Of Kerala
Bench: Manjula Chellur, K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/18TH POUSHA 1934
OP(KAT).No. 3850 of 2012 (Z)
-----------------------------------------
[AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31-07-2012 IN T.A. NO.3326/2012 OF
THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM]
...........
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
------------------------------------------
1. SRIVIDYA .P.
`VIJITH VIHAR',CC 51,CHINMAYA COLONY,
VIDYANAGAR.P.O.,KASARGOD DIST.
2. RAGHAVAN M.N,
KAKKOL HOSUE,KATTOR.P.O.,KASARGOD DIST.
3. ANNAPOORNA.S.K,
`KRISHNAKRIPA', SASINITHLU HOUSE,P.O. KINNINGARU,
VIA. MULLERIA, KASARGOD DIST.
4. MANJUNATHA ALVA .K,
KADAR HOUSE, P.O. PERDALA,
KASARGO-671 551.
5. SAVITHAKUMARI.M,
DWARAKA HOUSE,NEAR MUNUNGAVU TEMPLE,
P.O.KODIAMMA, VIA. KUMBALA,
KASARGOD-671 321.
6. PRAVEEN KUMAR,
SEETHANGOLI, BELA.P.O.,VIA. KUMBALA,
KASARGOD DIST.
7. SANDEEP.B.S,
KOLAKKAL HOUSE,
BANDADKA P.O.,KASARGOD DIST.
8. RAJESHWARI.M.M,
MAVINADY HOUSE,ADOOR,
P.O.URDOOR, VIA. MULLERIA, KASARGOD DIST.
Prv.
O.P.(KAT). NO.3850/2012-Z:
9. VATHASALAKUMAR.K.I,
PARWEKATTA HOUSE,MUTTAPPAN ROAD, P.O.RAMDAS NAGAR,
KUDLU,KASARGOD DIST.
10. GANGADHARA MANIYANI.K,
KOORKAPADY HOSUE,P.O. EDNEER,KASARGOD DIST-671 541.
11. BEENA M.S,
BHARATHRAJ HOUSE,(PO) R.D. NAGAR,KUDLU,
KASARGOD DIST-671 124.
12. RAVIKUMAR.B,
S.S. NILAYA BEEDUBAIL,P.O.,APIVALIKE,
KASARGOD-671 348.
13. PREMALATHA.C.S,
CHIPPAR HOUSE,P.O. AMMERI,VIA. UPPALA,
KASARGOD DIST.
14. SURESH BABU.Y.
YEROL HOUSE,P.O.,MYLATTY,
UDMA,KASARGOD-671 319.
15. DAYANANDA.O,
ODDAMBETTU PADPU HOUSE, KUBANOOR,
P.O,BEKUR,VIA. UPPALA, KASARGOD DIST.
16. HARISHKUMAR.B,
S.S. NILAYA BEEDUBAIL, P.O.,PAIVALIKE,
KASARGOD DIST.
17. HARIPRASAD.M,
KELAGENA KADAR HOUSE,PERADALA.P.O,
BADIYADKA VIA, KASARGOD DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
Prv.
O.P.(KAT). NO.3850/2012-Z:
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KASAROGD-671 001.
4. DISTRICT OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KASARGOD-671 001.
5. KRISHNA.A,
PANDAPLAVINADY HOUSE,P.O. URUDUR,KASARGOD -671 543.
6. YOGITHA.P.R,
VASANTHI NILAYA, P.O.,MIYAPADAVU,
VIA. MANJUESWARAM,KASARGOD DIST. PIN-671 323.
7. KRISHNAVENI.K,
BANDYADKA HOUSE,DELAMPADY.P.O,
KASARGOD DIST. PIN-671 543.
8. KAMALKSHI.K,
P.O.,PERMUDE,VIA. MANGALPADY,
KASARGOD DIST-671 317.
9. RAJESH KUMAR.S,
SHENI HOUSE,P.O.MAIRE,
VIA. PERLA, KASARGOD DIST., PIN-671 324.
10. PARVATHI.P,
PRATHAPA NAGARA HOUSE,MANGALPADY.P.O,
KASARGOD DIST-671 324.
11. PUSHPAVENI.P.R,
`AISHWARYA',NEAR G.U.P.S. PUTHIYAKANDAM,
P.O. ANANDASHRAM,KASARGOD DIST PIN-671 531.
12. PRIYA.C.H,
`SUDHEER NIVAS',JANATHA ROAD,
P.O,MEPPAYIL, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST.-673 001.
13. BHARATHI.P,
`KRISHNA NIVAS', PAREKATTA,
P.O. RAMDAS NAGAR, KASARGOD-671 125.
14. ABDUL RAHIMAN.N,
NADUBAIL HOUSE ,P.O. PERLA,KASARGOD DIST.-671 001.
R1 & R3 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. GIRIJA GOPAL,
R2 & R4 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, S.C, K.P.S.C.
THIS O.P KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME
UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Prv.
O.P.(KAT). NO.3850/2012-Z:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-7-2012 IN T.A. NO. 3326/2012
[W.P.(C).NO.50593/2010] OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF T.A. NO. 3326/2012
W.P.(C). NO. 30593/2010 TOGETHER WITH EXHIBITS DTD. 3/10/2010.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5-10-2010 IN W.P.(C). NO. 30593/2010
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-10-2011 IN W.P.(C).NO.30593/2010.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-12-2010 IN WPC NO. 30593/2010
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 15173/2011 PRODUCED ALONG WITH
EXT.P9 IN WPC NO. 30593/2010 DTD. 18/09/2011.
EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD. 19/10/2011 FILED
BY RESPONDENTS 2 AND 4
EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF 3RD
RESPONDENT DTD. 03/03/2012.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Prv.
MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J.
&
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
O.P.(KAT) No. 3850 of 2012
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2013
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as learned Government Pleader and
learned Standing Counsel appearing for Kerala Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission').
2. The writ petitioners approached initially this Court and later on, the matters came to be transferred to Kerala Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No.3326/2012. The petitioners' claim before the Tribunal is for the following reliefs.
i) to declare that all the petitioners are qualified for being advised and appointed to the post of UPSA(Kannada Medium);
ii) to declare that the qualification possessed by the petitioners are sufficient enough for being advised and appointed as UPSA (Kannada medium);
iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 4 to consider the petitioners also for selection to the post of UPSA OP(KAT) No. 3850 of 2012 -:2:- Kannada and to include them in the ranked list on the basis of Ext.P1 notification and to advice them to the post of UPSA Kannada Medium on the basis of their position in the ranked list;
iv) to issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.'
3. The entire controversy revolves round Chapter XXX1 Rule 3 read with Explanation 1(A) and also a Notification in response to which the petitioners had applied to the post of UPSA (Kannada Medium), i.e. Ext.P1. It is necessary to mention certain facts in order to appreciate the controversy raised before us. Apparently, all the petitioners had completed their SSLC or 10th or equivalent qualification in the medium of instruction of Kannada. It is also not in dispute that all these petitioners obtained degrees in different faculties and the medium of instruction was English. It is also not in dispute that they are also holders of B.Ed degrees in various subjects, but not in Kannada. Undoubtedly, none of the candidates have completed their B.Ed course in the medium of instruction of Kannada. With these facts, one has to understand the actual qualification required by Commission to the post of UPSA(Kannada Medium) OP(KAT) No. 3850 of 2012 -:3:- as reflected in the Notification at Ext.P1 and also Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI of the Kerala Education Rules. In the Notification dated 11.09.2006 the qualifications prescribed for the post are as under:
"7. Qualifications :
"1. A pass in SSLC Examination conducted by the Commissioner of Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent.
OR A pass in Pre-Degree Examination conducted by the Board of higher Secondary Examinations, Kerala or any other Examinations recognized by Government as equivalent there to AND
2. A pass in TTC (Kannada) Examination conducted by the Commissioner of Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent.
OR A Degree in any subject and B.Ed/BT/LT(Kannada) conferred by or recognized by the Universities in Kerala. "
4. Then coming to Chapter XXXI Rule 3 and Explanation 1(A) which read as under:
OP(KAT) No. 3850 of 2012 -:4:-
R.3. Upper Primary School:
(1) Upper Primary School Assistant ["A pass in SSLC examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent or a pass in Pre-Degree examination conducted by any of the Universities in Kerala or any examination recognized by any such Universities as equivalent to Pre-Degree examination or a pass in a Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Examination, Kerala or any other examination recognized by Government as equivalent there to and a pass in TTC Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala; OR a degree in any subject and B.Ed/BT/LT conferred by or recognized by the Universities of Kerala]"
" Explanation I(A):- In the case of schools where Kannada or Tamil is the sole medium of instruction. (TTC (Kannada) or TTC (Tamil) issued by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala respectively, shall be considered as sufficient training qualification for appointment to the post of Upper Primary School Assistant in Kannada or Tamil Medium Schools as the case may be. In the absence of candidate with TTC(Kannada) or TTC(Tamil) issued by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala, candidates with T.C.H issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, Bangalore, or Basic TTC issued by the Director of Government Examinations, Tamil Nadu shall be considered for appointment." OP(KAT) No. 3850 of 2012 -:5:-
5. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, one has to understand the qualifications required with reference to the Rule and irrespective of what is stated in the Notification at Ext.P1. According to him, as long as there is knowledge of Kannada available to the petitioners irrespective of what subject they had studied the course of B.Ed, they are entitled to be appointed as UPSA (Kannada Medium) in terms of Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI of the Rules. According to him, the Executive Order of 2002 and the Notification at Ext.P1 had to be read in accordance with the Rule and it would only lead to the conclusion that irrespective of any subject the B.Ed is chosen to be done by the petitioners as long as they have the knowledge of Kannada language, they would be entitled to be appointed to the above said post. To substantiate his contentions, he relies upon the following points.
6. Ext.P1 (Kannada) is with reference to only Language Trainee and not with reference to B.Ed or B.T. In other words, requirement of Kannada is only with reference to language trainee and not with reference to either B.Ed course or B.T course. To substantiate this contention, he further submits that OP(KAT) No. 3850 of 2012 -:6:- B.Ed is not like TCH or other course and it can be done in any subject of choice of the candidate including the Kannada language. According to the petitioners' counsel, many of the candidates before us have done second language as Kannada in Degree as well as in B.Ed course. He also took us through paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the Government to support his contention that Kannada need not be either a language as such or medium of instructions in B.Ed course.
7. As against this, the contention of learned Standing Counsel for the Commission is, when the very purpose of appointing a teacher where medium of instruction is Kannada, one has to understand Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI along with Explanation 1(A) with reference to Ext.P1 Notification calling upon the applications to the post of UPSA (Kannada Medium). Therefore, according to him, there has to be strict compliance with regard to qualifications required as indicated at Ext.P1 and reading of the qualifications at Ext.P1 would ultimately lead to only one conclusion that a person having medium of instruction in Kannada as required in the qualifications at serial No.7 has to OP(KAT) No. 3850 of 2012 -:7:- be appointed as UPSA teacher which would serve the purpose of introducing medium of instruction Kannada in a particular district. In other words, according to him, even if a candidate has the best working knowledge of Kannada or Kannada literature, in the absence of qualifications possessed by him as contemplated at Ext.P1, he will not be eligible for appointment to the post of UPSA (Kannada Medium) as indicated at Ext.P1.
8. Learned Government Pleader more or less stressing upon Explanation 1(A) tried to persuade the Court to contend that what is applicable to TTC or TCH as indicated in Rule 3 mutatis mutandis applies to B.Ed degree as well and therefore one cannot read the qualifications or the knowledge of Kannada with reference to B.Ed/B.T or LT in isolation, totally ignoring Explanation 1(A) to Rule 3.
9. Reading of the notification clearly indicates, one must have either SSLC Examination conducted by the Commissioner of Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent or a pass in Pre-degree Examination conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Examinations, Kerala or any other examinations recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto and a pass OP(KAT) No. 3850 of 2012 -:8:- in TTC( Kannada) Examination conducted by the Commissioner of Government Examinations, Kerala or a Degree in any subject along with B.Ed/B.T/LT (Kannada) conferred by or recognized by the Universities in Kerala.
10. As already stated above, all the petitioners have studied Kannada as medium of instruction upto SSLC and Kannada as a language thereafter including in their B.Ed. Whether studying medium of instruction in Kannada upto SSLC or studying Kannada as a language is either in PUC or BA/B.Sc and B.Ed would be equivalent to the qualifications required at Serial No.7 of Ext.P1. A Degree in any subject does not necessarily require Kannada, but whether B.Ed/B.T/LT (Kannada) would mean B.Ed in Kannada, BT in Kannada or LT in Kannada. According to learned Counsel, it refers to only LT (Kannada) and not B.Ed and BT. If Explanation 1(A) stated above to Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI of the Rules and the requirement of TTC (Kannada) is read together, one can reasonably understand what exactly the intention behind this Rule and the Notification. When teachers in Kannada Medium of instruction schools are required to teach various subjects in OP(KAT) No. 3850 of 2012 -:9:- Kannada only, necessarily the language of Kannada takes important place. Therefore, there is insistence for TTC (Kannada) or equivalent examination with Kannada.
11. According to learned Counsel, B.Ed and BT (Kannada) is deliberately omitted as there is no such requirement. So far as the notification Ext.P1, it says B.Ed/B.T/LT and then Kannada. It would necessarily mean B.Ed (Kannada), B.T (Kannada) and LT (Kannada). Whether this notification is in accordance with Rule 3 is the question next to be seen as contended by learned counsel for the petitioners. If one reads Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI, though it says a Degree in any subject and B.Ed/B.T/LT conferred by or recognized by the Universities in Kerala, it does not say Kannada after B.Ed,B.T and LT. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, Kannada is not a must in B.Ed,B.T and LT. If Kannada is not a must in any of these degrees, there is no relevance so far as mentioning LT. Language Training has to be in a particular language. Therefore obviously, it cannot mean that LT in any language. For illustration if LT is contained in Malayalam, will he able to teach medium of instruction where Kannada alone is required? OP(KAT) No. 3850 of 2012 -:10:- Therefore, non-mentioning of Kannada after B.Ed, B.T and LT necessarily has to be read along with Explanation 1(A). Explanation 1(A) explains what exactlyit is where the sole medium of instruction is either Kannada or Tamil as stated above.
12. Though this Explanation is not with reference to B.Ed., BT and LT, as B.Ed., BT and LT is introduced on account of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, one has to understand that even the higher qualifications in teacher's training need not be excluded from considering to a post which requires only TTC and TCH. In other words, a candidate having a better qualification need not be disqualified on account of having a better qualification than the required qualification. Then the question is whether that better qualification is as required for TCH or anything else. What is emphasized so far as TTC or TCH necessarily has to be applied to B.Ed, BT and LT as well. Otherwise, the very purpose of Rule and the Explanation becomes otiose, whenever a degree in B.Ed, BT and LT exists. One has to understand the purpose and the object in introducing such rule and also the intention why such notification is issued. OP(KAT) No. 3850 of 2012 -:11:-
13. In the present case, necessarily Kannada language takes importance because the medium of instruction is in Kannada. The candidates may have at their command best language knowledge, but in the absence of having a qualification required as per Ext.P1, it will definitely not take them on par with the persons who have a qualification as indicated at Ext.P1. The intention is not to have working knowledge of Kannada, but a technical certificate or a degree in a particular language so as to teach subjects which have to be taught in Kannada.
In that view of the matter, one has to read Explanation 1(A) even in respect of candidate with B.Ed., BT and LT Degree. It will lead to the conclusion that necessarily B.Ed must be either in language where the language is the major course of study would be with reference to language Kannada or the medium of instruction is in Kannada. In the present case none of the candidates possess such qualification though they have higher degree or B.Ed. In the absence of qualification of TTC or TCH in Kannada invariably one has to refer to graduation and B.Ed/BT/LT in Kannada. In the absence of such language in B.Ed, necessarily they are not qualified to be considered to the OP(KAT) No. 3850 of 2012 -:12:- post of UPSA (Kannada Medium). In view of the above reasoning, we are of the opinion, there is no ground which would warrant interference with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed.
Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.
sj/09/01