Kerala High Court
Nitheesh. A vs The District Educational Officer on 1 February, 2017
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/12TH MAGHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 300 of 2017 (J)
--------------------------
PETITIONER :
----------------------
NITHEESH. A.,
S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN.K.,
P.K.KALAM, VEMBALLUR P.O., PALAKKAD-678 502.
BY ADV. SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD - 678 001.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
PALAKKAD - 678 001.
3. THE MANAGER,
MHS (MUSLIM HIGH SCHOOL), PUDUNAGARAM,
PALAKKAD -678 503.
*ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED
*ADDL.R4: THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
*ADDL.R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01/02/2017
R1,R2 & ADDL.R4 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 300 of 2017 (J)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------------------------
EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE DATED 2.6.2003.
EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.12.2010.
EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE
DATED 5.5.2004.
EXHIBIT-P3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE
DATED 28.4.2016.
EXHIBIT-P3(B): TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE
DATED 17.4.2007.
EXHIBIT-P3(C): TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE
(GEOMETRICAL DRAWING) DATED 17.4.2007.
EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEO DATED 30.8.2016.
EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 06.09.2016.
EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.11.16 IN
W.P.(C) NO.35437/2016.
EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DPI DATED 06.11.2013.
EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.8.16 IN
W.P.(C) NO.25653/2015.
EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 05.12.2016.
EXHIBIT-P10: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE TECHNICAL
EDUCATION, TVM DATED 17.3.2016.
EXHIBIT-P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
17.12.2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------------------------
EXHIBIT R2(A): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.24664/13 DATED 09/11/2016.
/TRUE COPY/
sts P.A.TO JUDGE
P.V.ASHA, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No. 300 of 2017
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 01st day of February, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who was appointed as Drawing Teacher in Muslim High School which is an Aided School under the 4th respondent with effect from 03.06.2013, is aggrieved by the rejection of approval of his appointment as per Ext P4 order of the 1st respondent, which was upheld in Ext P11 order of the 2nd respondent, on the ground that he does not have the requisite qualification as prescribed in Chapter XXXI Rule 3 of KER.
2. Petitioner's case is that, he is fully qualified for appointment as Drawing teacher, having passed S.S.L.C in the year 2003, B.Com in 2009 and MGTE qualification in 2003. According to him Ext.P3 series of certificates issued by the Director of Tamil Nadu Government Technical Examinations in the year 2003, is the same as certificate in MGTE qualification with the only difference that it has been issued by Government of Tamilnadu instead of Madras and hence he is fully qualified in tune with the provisions contained in Chapter XXXI of Kerala Education Rules 1958. Petitioner also points out that the very same respondents have approved the appointment of W.P.(C). No. 300 of 2017 2 several drawing teachers having identical qualifications and hence he seeks direction to approve his appointment with effect from 3.6.2013. Petitioner has produced Ext P10 letter of the Director of Technical Education issued to him on 17.03.2016, by which he was informed that the Technical Examination certificate issued by the Department of Government Examinations, Chennai is recognised by the State Board of Technical Education, Kerala. The petitioner, points out that in the case of one Sri. K.R.Renjith, who was having similar qualifications acquired from the Tamilnadu Government, the Director of Public Instructions (DPI) had by Ext.P7 order issued on 06.11.2013, directed the District Educational Officer (DEO), Trissur, to approve his appointment as a Drawing Teacher, seeing that MGTE certificate in drawing obtained by him was equivalent to KGTE. It is also pointed out that Si. K. R Renjith, had filed W.P.(C) No. 25653 of 2015 when the DEO did not issue orders approving his appointment despite the direction in Ext P7, seeking further clarifications from the DPI regarding the equivalency of qualification. In Ext.P8 judgment, this Court found that it was incumbent on the DEO to issue formal orders of approval in tune with Ext P7 direction of the DPI and W.P.(C). No. 300 of 2017 3 directed approval of his appointment.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the certificates produced by the petitioner are certificate of Higher Examination in free hand outline and model Drawing at Govt Technical Examination held at Dharapuram in 2003 in painting (oil colour) in 2005, in Design Pattern for Textile Fabrics and in Geometrical Drawing in 2006 issued by Additional Secretary to Govt of Tamil Nadu. Even at the time of hearing, the certificate Ext P10 produced by the petitioner was one in which the Director of Technical Education stated that the Technical Examination Certificates issued by the Department of Technical Examinations, Chennai are recognised by the State Board of Technical Examinations, Kerala. Petitioner had not produced any certificate to prove that the certificates acquired by him are equivalent to either KGTE or MGTE. The respondents have also referred to the judgment of this Court in W.P.C No. 24664/13, in which Govt was directed to consider the question of qualifications of the petitioner therein, who was also having certificates from Tamil Nadu.
4. I have considered the pleadings and the contentions raised by Sri. Sreedhar Ravindran, the learned W.P.(C). No. 300 of 2017 4 counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Govt Pleader.
5. The learned Government Pleader points out that Ext P9 judgment in the case of Sri. Renjith, would show that the DPI had issued Ext P7 letter in the light of the letter dated 22.02.2012 of the Director of Technical Education certifying that MGTE Drawing can be considered as KGTE Drawing. In this case Ext P10 letter only says that the certificates issued by the Department of Technical Examinations, Chennai are recognised. It is the case of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no procedure prevailing for issuance of equivalency certificates as available in Universities.
6. The qualification for appointment of Drawing Teacher in a High School is prescribed under under Rule 2 (3) (a) of Chapter XXXI as follows:
"Drawing Teacher: (1) A pass in S.S.L.C Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala; or its equivalent and (2) Certificate in Drawing and painting (two year course) issued by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala; or Diploma in painting issued by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala; or Group Diploma in Drawing, KGTE or MGTE. W.P.(C). No. 300 of 2017 5
[or Certificate in Sculpture and Modelling (2 year course) issued by the Commissioner for Government Examinations Kerala) [or Certificate in Kerala Government Certificate Examination in Fine Arts issued by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Keral]"
7. Ext P3 series of certificates issued to petitioner are issued from the Department of Government Examinations (Education), and petitioner has passed Higher Examination in Freehand Outline and Model Drawing at the the Govt Technical Examinations held at Dharapuram in 2003, similar certificates of Higher Grade examination in Painting (Oil Colour) in 2006, in Design Pattern for Textile Fabrics in 2007 and Geometrical Drawing in 2007. P10 letter is a general statement to the effect that certificates issued by the Department of Technical Examinations, Chennai are recognised. Whether Ext P3 series certificates issued to petitioner are sufficient for appointment as Drawing Teacher is to be considered by the Department with reference to the provisions contained in Chapter XXXI Rule 2(3)(a) of KER. It is not clear whether the qualifying certificates of Sri. Renjith, the petitioner in the judgment Ext P9 were similar to those in the case of petitioner. At any rate it is seen that this court W.P.(C). No. 300 of 2017 6 directed approval, when the DEO delayed the approval despite the direction of the DPI. Petitioner has acquired several certificates in drawing.
8. Therefore the question whether Ext P3 series of certificates are sufficient, higher or equivalent as prescribed in Rule 2(3)(a) are to be considered and determined by Government if necessary, in consultation with Government of Tamil Nadu.
9. Therefore there shall be a direction to Government to consider whether the qualifications possessed by the petitioner by way of the certificates in Ext.P3 series are sufficient/equivalent/higher to those prescribed in Rule 2(3)
(a) of Chapter XXXI KER for appointment of Drawing Teachers in High School. This shall be done after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 3rd respondent shall forward the certificates of the petitioner through the respondents 1 and 2 to the Government (General Education Department) within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1st respondent shall thereafter issue orders on approval of the petitioner depending on the decision of government without W.P.(C). No. 300 of 2017 7 any further delay.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-P.V.ASHA, Judge lsn