Beena Paul, Higher Secondary vs State of Kerala, The Director of Higher Secondary and The Manager, ST. John''s Higher Secondary

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The Petitioner''s appointment as Higher Secondary School Teacher has been approved with effect from 1.10.2001 and the Petitioner seeks for approval from 1.8.2000, the date on which the vacancy has arisen. The appointment was to the post of HSST Hindi. It is averred in paragraph No. 1 of the Writ Petition that the post of HSST (Hindi) was sanctioned along with other posts with effect from 1.8.2000. The Government by Exhibit P2 order introduced passing the State Eligibility Test (SET) as an additional qualification. It was specified in the said order that as an interim measure appointments to Higher Secondary School Teachers during the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 can be made from the candidates having the required educational qualifications subject to the condition that such candidates should pass the SET within a period of two years from the date of appointment.

Initially, the appointment of the Petitioner was made as per Exhibit P7 order from 1.10.2001. The order of approval has been produced as Exhibit P23 wherein the Director of Higher Secondary Education granted approval of the appointment from 1.10.2001 to 14.7.2005.

The Petitioner had been seeking for approval from 1.8.2000. In respect of another teacher Smt. D. Retnamony who was also similarly appointed, by Exhibit P12 judgment, this Court upheld her claim from the date of occurrence of vacancy. This Court accepted the principle that the Petitioner therein is entitled to have her claim considered from date of occurrence of vacancy. In accordance with the said judgment, the Manager appointed Smt. D. Retnamony as per Exhibit P13 order with effect from 1.8.2000. It is submitted that the said appointment has been approved already. Claiming the benefit of the said judgment, the Petitioner also approached the Manager and thereafter the Manager issued an order as per Exhibit P15 whereby the Petitioner is appointed with effect from 1.8.2000. It is pointed out that earlier the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing O.P. No. 27434/2000 wherein this Court directed the Manager to consider her claim. Accordingly, the order was passed by the Manager.

Exhibit P17 is the order thereafter passed by the Director of Higher Secondary Education rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for approval from 1.8.2000 stating that she was not having the SET qualification. This was challenged before the Government and the Government by Exhibit P22 order upheld the order passed by the Director of Higher Secondary Education.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a reading of the order passed by the Government Exhibit P22 will show that mainly the Government found that the approval of appointment of Smt. D. Retnamony was granted in terms of the direction issued by this Court. But the Government refused to consider the claim of the Petitioner even though according to the learned Counsel, the Petitioner was also similarly placed.

It is true that the Manager initially appointed the Petitioner on 1.10.2001. There is no dispute that the date of occurrence of vacancy is on 1.8.2000 as the post was created from that date. Even hough the learned Government Pleader pointed out that in the light of Exhibit P4 order, the Petitioner who was not having SET qualification was not entitled for appointment, evidently, in the light of Exhibit P2 order SET was not insisted in respect of persons appointed in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. Time was granted for acquiring SET qualification by two years. Thus Exhibit P4 cannot go against the Petitioner.

The principle under which this Court considered the case of Smt. D. Retnamony is that she is entitled for approval with effect from the date of occurrence of vacancy. The legal position as regards the same admits of, no doubt.

This Court after considering various aspects declared that the Petitioner therein, without insisting for SET, should have been appointed provided she was having all the qualifications prescribed by the executive orders then in force. Evidently, the case of the Petitioner is also similar in nature and there are no distinguishing factors. Therefore, the principle in Exhibit P12 judgment ought to have been applied in the case of the Petitioner also.

In the light of the above, it is declared that the Petitioner is entitled for approval with effect from 1.8.2000. Exhibits P17 and P22 orders are quashed to that extent. There will be a direction to the 2nd Respondent-Director of Higher Secondary Education to approve the appointment of the Petitioner in terms of the appointment order Exhibit P15 with effect from 1.8.2000. But, it is made clear that she will be entitled for payment of salary only from 1.10.2001 and appropriate orders will be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd Respondent-Director of Higher Secondary Education for compliance.

The Writ Petition is allowed as above.