Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 45 (KER)

Vijayamma v. St Marys U P School

2001-01-17

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR

body2001
JUDGMENT K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The petitioner and 6th respondent contest each other for the post of Headmaster of a U. P. School where they are working. The petitioner possesses B.Sc. and B.Ed. The 6th respondent possesses Malayalam Vidwan title and L.T.T. The 6th respondent is senior to the petitioner. These are the admitted position. Appointment to the post of Headmaster in a U. P. School is as per R.45 of Chap.14 K.E.R. which reads: "45. Subject to R.44, when the post of Headmaster of complete U. P. School is vacant or when an incomplete U. P. School becomes a complete U. P. School, the post shall be filled up from among the qualified teachers on the staff of the school or Schools under the Educational Agency. If there is a Graduate teacher with B.Ed. or other equivalent qualification and who has got at least five years experience in teaching after acquisition of B.Ed. Degree he may be appointed as Headmaster provided he has got a service equal to half of the period of service of the seniormost under graduate teacher. If graduate teachers with the aforesaid qualification and service are not available in the School or Schools under the same Educational Agency, the seniormost Primary School Teacher with SSLC or equivalent and TTC issued by the Board of Public Examination, Kerala or TCH issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, Bangalore or a pass in Pre degree Examination with Pedagogy as an elective subject conducted by the University of Kerala or any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant may be appointed. Note:- The language/specialist teachers, according to their seniority in the combined seniority list of teachers, shall also be appointed as Headmaster of U. P. School or Schools under an Educational Agency provided the teacher possesses the prescribed qualifications for promotion as Headmaster of U. P. School on the date of occurrence of vacancy." As per this rule, the qualification for the post of Headmaster of a U. P. School is graduation with B.Ed. provided that teacher is having five years service after acquiring B.Ed. and is having equal to half of the period of service of the seniormost under graduate teacher. provided that teacher is having five years service after acquiring B.Ed. and is having equal to half of the period of service of the seniormost under graduate teacher. That comparison is with reference to a seniormost undergraduate teacher qualified to be appointed as Headmaster as held by this court in Raghavan Nair v. Balachandran Nair ( 1992 (1) KLT 390 ). It is further provided in the said rule that if graduate teachers with the aforesaid qualification and service are not available in the school, the seniormost primary school teacher with SSLC or equivalent and TTC or TCH or Pre degree with Pedagogy "or any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant may be appointed." It is submitted by the petitioner that in the absence of a graduate teacher only persons with TTC or Pre degree with pedagogy or any other training qualification equivalent thereto alone can be appointed. The 6th Respondent is admittedly possessing only LTT. That is not an 'equivalent training qualification' to B.Ed., T.T.C., T.C.H. or Pre degree with pedagogy. In such circumstances, the petitioner being the seniormost teacher shall be appointed as Headmistress, as the 6th respondent is not qualified; not because of the preference for graduation, but because of seniority, at least with reference to the date of acquiring five years service, going by R.45C which provides for replacement of underqualified hands with qualified hands. 2. On the other hand, the 6th respondent contends that for appointment as HSA (Language) in a High School graduation with B.Ed. is a qualification. At the same time, persons with title of Vidwan and LTT can also be appointed as HSA. Therefore, LTT is equivalent to B.Ed. So she shall be deemed to have an equivalent training qualification meaning thereby, a training qualification equivalent to B.Ed. It is further contended that graduates in languages having LTT are exempted from B.Ed. Therefore, on the basis of such exemption LTT shall be taken as equivalent to B.Ed. Therefore, the 6th respondent is having an 'equivalent training qualification' and she is fully qualified. In this regard the 6th respondent relies on Ext. R6(c) judgment which reads as follows: "The qualification for such appointment is SSLC or equivalent, TTC, etc. or any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant. Therefore, the 6th respondent is having an 'equivalent training qualification' and she is fully qualified. In this regard the 6th respondent relies on Ext. R6(c) judgment which reads as follows: "The qualification for such appointment is SSLC or equivalent, TTC, etc. or any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant. Chap.31 of the Rules also refers to the training qualification of the High School Assistant as B.Ed./BT/LT and language teachers' training in Hindi has been equated to B.Ed./BT/LT. Government also vide its order G. O.(MS) No. 215/92/G.Edn. dated 10.12.1992 exempted the teachers who have passed LTTC before the academic year 1992-93 from acquiring B.Ed. qualification. Therefore , LTTC is considered as equivalent to B.Ed. and Government have exempted those teachers who have passed LTTC from acquiring the B.Ed. qualification." Therefore, the 6th respondent shall be treated as qualified, she submits. 3. R.2 of Chap.31 does not say that a Language Teachers' Training in Hindi or any other language has been equated to B.Ed., BT and LT. Graduation with B.Ed. is the qualification for appointment as HSA (Language). Title of Vidwan with LTT is an alternate qualification for that appointment. That does not mean that title is equivalent to graduation or LTT is equivalent to B.Ed. Those are only alternate qualifications. Chap.31 thus does not deal with any equivalence of LTT with B.Ed., as I read. It is true that there is a Government Order exempting LTTC holders from acquiring B.Ed. in certain situations. An exemption from a qualification does not make one as possessing an equivalent qualification. Exemption is in special circumstances. Qualification is based on passing an examination and acquiring a qualification. Therefore, I cannot agree with the view taken in Ext. R6(c) judgment. 4. There is a recent Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 1831/2000 and connected cases. Eligibility of a Hindi teacher with title and LTT for the post of Headmaster was considered in the said case. The said judgment reads as follows: "We notice that the academic qualification required for the post of HSA (Hindi) is a decree in Hindi conferred or recognised by the Universities in Kerala; or, a title of Oriental learning in Hindi awarded or recognised by the Universities in Kerala; or Praveen of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras with a pass in the SSLC Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent. The mere fact that the qualification is made equivalent to the degree conferred or recognised by the Universities in Kerala, for the purpose of appointment to the post of HSA (Hindi) does not mean that qualification is equivalent to Graduation for the purpose of considering for appointment to the post of Headmaster. In other words, the qualification of Praveen of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras is equivalent only for the purpose of appointing to the post of HSA (Hindi) and not for the post of Headmaster of U. P. School. 5. We may notice that the training qualification is B.Ed./BT/LT conferred or recognised by the Universities in Kerala or Diploma or Certificate of Language Teacher's Training in Hindi issued by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala; or Diploma in Hindi Teachers Training issued by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala. The mere fact that Diploma in Hindi Teachers Training issued by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala, is also considered as an alternative qualification, or equivalent qualification, for the purpose of appointment to the post of HSA (Hindi) does not mean that Diploma in Hindi Teachers Training is equivalent to B.Ed./BT/LT for the purpose of consideration to the post of Headmaster." This contains complete answer to issue raised in this case and that answer is against the 6th respondent. Factually the case on hand and the case examined by the Division Bench are almost identical with only difference that 6th respondent is Malayalam teacher whereas her counterpart in the Division Bench case is a Hindi teacher. Both are not graduates. Both are only L.T.T. holders in the respective language. Consequently it has to be held that 6th respondent is not qualified to hold the post of Headmistress of a U. P. School. Ext. P8 is quashed. Consequences follow. Original Petition is allowed as above.