Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) IHRD being a solution Provider of Software he was put in charge for conducting training programmes and courses for various clients which is purely of academic nature. Government also considered the nature of work of IHRD and recognized the IHRD as a Total Solution Provider (TSP) of Government of Kerala (G.O(Ms) No.62/99/IT dt. 22.4.99).

(ii) Conducting online Courses in Linux and introduced several training programmes to Master Trainers and school teachers through IT School which is purely of academic nature.

Ext.R1(b) also does not disclose that the petitioner worked as a College/University teacher and that he had 7 years' teaching experience. It shows that the petitioner had 9= years of service of which 7= years was in the IHRD and 2 years in Coir Fed. It further states that in the IHRD, the petitioner was put in charge for conducting training programmes and courses for various clients which is purely academic in nature. It further states that the petitioner has conducted on line courses in Linux and introduced several training programmes to master trainers and school teachers through IT school which is purely of academic nature. It is also stated therein that the petitioner provided guidance and assistance for graduate and PG students, for their final year project works which is also purely of academic nature categorised as teaching. The 3rd respondent has tried to rope in the service in Coir Fed also as part of IHRD service, implying thereby that that should also be reckoned for the purpose. By the same the 3rd respondent has strained very much to support the petitioner's claim. At the same time he is cautious enough to state that IHRD was unaware of the requirements of the University, since the University did not furnish any specific proforma for this purpose. But he has sadly failed to prove either that the petitioner is a College/University teacher or that he had 7 years of teaching experience. The experience mentioned in Ext.R1(b), even if academic in nature, hardly qualifies as teaching experience. Therefore, without any doubt, the petitioner did not possess either of the two qualifications prescribed by the Regulations for claiming exemption from entrance test.