Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 584 (KER)

Jayanand v. A. E. O

2000-11-08

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR

body2000
Judgment :- Per K. A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner, in O.P. 5361/1999 is a claimant under R. 51B Chap. XIV-A KER for appointment in the school managed by the second respondent. The school managed by the second respondent is a lower primary school. The petitioner possesses admittedly the qualifications of B.Sc. and B.Ed. Admittedly the petitioner does not have TTC qualification. The petitioner's case was directed to be considered. The Manager considered the petitioner's claim and issued Ext. P8 order on 28.1.1999, which is impugned in this Original Petition. The manager declined appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not have TTC qualification which is an essential one for appointment as LP School Assistant. Assailing Ext. P8 it is contended by the petitioner that B.Ed. is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore the petitioner shall be deemed to be qualified in terms of R. 4A Chapter XXXI KER. TTC is a course having a duration of two years. B.Ed. is a course having duration of one year. TTC is a course where the teachers are trained to teach all subjects to tiny tots, whereas B.Ed. is a course where teachers are trained to teach one or two subjects alone for High School Classes. Therefore one cannot be compared with the other to hold that one is a lower qualification and the other is a higher qualification. Admittedly B.Ed. is a training qualification. R. 4A Chap. XXXI KER reads as follows : "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-r. (1) of R. 4 the Educational officer shall be competent to approve appointments of candidates possessing higher qualifications provided they have any of the training qualifications approved by the Government of Kerala."So that contention also cannot be accepted. Higher qualification made mention of in R. 4-A is not in respect of a training qualification. It is in respect of academic qualification. The training qualification is dealt with in the proviso to that rule, which does not speak about a higher training qualification. There is also recent amendment to R. 4 which provides qualification for appointment to Lower Primary School Teacher. TTC is essential for appointment as LP School Assistant. At the same time the petitioner has a case that his claim relates back to a date prior to the enforcement of the said amendment. This is a matter which can be considered in the departmental level itself. Ext. TTC is essential for appointment as LP School Assistant. At the same time the petitioner has a case that his claim relates back to a date prior to the enforcement of the said amendment. This is a matter which can be considered in the departmental level itself. Ext. P8 being an order passed by the Manager rejecting the claim of the petitioner, there arise a dispute between the petitioner and manager, to be resolved under R. 64 Chapter XIV-A KER by the Educational Officer concerned. Therefore the petitioner has to raise such a dispute for resolution by the Educational Officer. If a dispute is raised within two months, the Education Officer shall resolve that dispute, at any rate within six weeks therefrom, with notice to the petitioner, second respondent and also the petitioner in O.P. 13998/1999. Therefore O.P. 5361/99 fails and is dismissed. The petitioner in O.P. 13998/1999 is the person appointed by the Manager. That is not approved because of the claim raised by the petitioner in O.P. 5361/99 is alive. Now that claim was resolved as mentioned above by Ext. P8 in O.P. 5361/99 and I had relegated the petitioner in that O.P. to the alternate remedy under R.64 Chapter XIV-A KER on a definite aspect. Therefore approval of the appointment of the petitioner in O.P. 13998/99 shall be dependent upon the order to be passed by the Education Officer as directed above while dealing with O.P. 5361/99. That is why I directed that the petitioner in O.P. 13998/99 shall also be heard at that time. This petitioner can put forward her case based on qualification as well as lack of qualification by the petitioner in O.P. 5361/99 as well.Thus O.P. 13998/99 is closed accordingly.