Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 723 (KER)

B. Sambasivan v. State Of Kerala

2001-12-06

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2001
Judgment :- Balakrishnan Nair, J. The point to be decided in both the cases being the same, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. The point that has arisen for decision in these cases is whether a person who has passed B.Ed. through correspondence course from the Annamalai University, though the said Degree is recognized by the Universities in Kerala, is eligible for appointment as Headmaster. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the cases are the following: W.A. NO. 183/2000 T The appellant joined the service of the second respondent's School as H.S.A. on 18.9.1973. He was a Language Teacher. He has continuous service in that cadre from 28.1.1976. He passed B.A. in 1986 and B.Ed. in 1988. The fifth respondent joined the school as H.S.A. on 15.6.1983. She joined with B.A. and B.Ed. She passed B.Ed. Degree from Annamalai University on 31.12.1980 and at the relevant time the same was recognized by the Universities in Kerala. But from 1981 onwards, it is submitted, the recognition of the said degree was withdrawn by our Universities. 2. A vacancy in the post of Headmaster in the second respondent's School arose on 1.6.1998. Admittedly, the appellant is senior in the cadre of H.S.A. But he did not have 12 years graduate service on the date of occurrence of vacancy on 1.5.1998. The fifth respondent was qualified in all respects. So, the Manager appointed the fifth respondent. It is not necessary to refer to the various orders in favour of and against the appellant passed by the statutory authorities. The final authority under the K.E.R., the Government by Ext. P7 order found in favour of the fifth respondent. That was the order impugned in the Original Petition. The learned single Judge dismissed the Original Petition upholding Ext. P7. Hence the present Appeal.. 3. The larned counsel for the Appellant Shri P.K. Ashokan mainly urged two points. The first contention was that since the Universities in Kerala have subsequently de-recognised the B.Ed. Degree Course of Annamalai University awarded after undergoing the correspondence course, it must be held that the fifth respondent is ineligible for appointment as Headmistress. It is common case that when the fifth respondent passed the B.Ed. Degree examination through correspondence course, the said Degree was having recognition. Therefore, on the strength of the recognized Degree, she was appointed as H.S.A. and the same was approved also. It is common case that when the fifth respondent passed the B.Ed. Degree examination through correspondence course, the said Degree was having recognition. Therefore, on the strength of the recognized Degree, she was appointed as H.S.A. and the same was approved also. The subsequent withdrawal of approval of a Degree will not invalidate the Degrees awarded by a University earlier. 4. It so happens that a particular Degree of a University is recognized on finding that the various norms for recognition are satisfied. When subsequently it is found that the same standards are not being maintained in imparting instruction, the recognition may be withdrawn. But that will not affect the validity of Degrees obtained when the said Course was having recognition. SO, we are not inclined to accept the contention urged in this regard by the appellant. 5. The second and important contention urged by the counsel for the appellant was the one made relying on the explanation to Rule 44 (A). To understand the said contention properly, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions contained in Chapter XXXI. Rule 2 (1) of Chapter XXXI prescribes the qualification for Headmaster in the following manner: "A Degree in Arts or Science and B.Ed./B.T./L.T. conferred or recognized by the Universities in Kerala". Rule 1 of Chapter XXXI reads as follows: "The teachers in private schools shall have the educational and professional qualification prescribed in this Chapter. The conditions regarding age, departmental qualifications,service qualifications and other service conditions shall be governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules contained in the foregoing Chapters." 6. By virtue of this provision, there can be other additional qualifications apart from those prescribed under Rule 2 (2) of Chapter XXXI. Rule 44A prescribes the additional qualifications for appointment as Headmaster. They are: 1. Twelve years of continuous graduate service. 2. Pass in the test in Kerala Education Act and Kerala Education Rules & 3. Pass in Account Test (Lower). An Explanation has been added to Rule 44A on 24.6.1975 explaining what is graduate service. Rule 44A prescribes the additional qualifications for appointment as Headmaster. They are: 1. Twelve years of continuous graduate service. 2. Pass in the test in Kerala Education Act and Kerala Education Rules & 3. Pass in Account Test (Lower). An Explanation has been added to Rule 44A on 24.6.1975 explaining what is graduate service. The relevant portion of the said Explanation reads as follows: "For the purpose of this Rule "Graduate Service" means service of a teacher as High School Assistant, Training Assistant, Headmaster of an incomplete High School, Headmaster of a complete Upper Primary School/Middle School or Headmaster of a Training School after acquisition of a collegiate training, such as, B.T., L.T. or B.Ed". Relying on the said provision, it is contended by the appellant that the B.Ed. Degree should be one obtained after attending a college. The B.Ed. Degree obtained by the fifth respondent being only through the correspondence course, she does not have the requisite graduate service in terms of the Rules, the appellant submits. 7. Controverting the above contention, the counsel for the contesting respondents submitted as follows: There can be different types of training acquired by a teacher. He might be a T.T.C. holder. He might have language teachers training course which is sufficient for appointment as H.S.A. (Language). There are other training qualifications, such as B.T./L.T. or B.Ed. These three qualifications (BT/LT/B.Ed.) are obtained after collegiate training. There might be a case where a teacher might have completed 12 years service after obtaining Degree in the concerned Subject. But, he may not have completed 12 years after obtaining B.Ed. Degree,. If the qualification is prescribed as graduate service obtained after acquiring training qualification, a language teacher with L.T.T.C. or T.T.C. and who has completed 12 years service after obtaining B.A. Degree will be eligible for appointment as Headmaster as L.T.T.C. and T.T.C. are also training qualifications, even if he has not completed 12 years after obtaining B.Ed. So, to exclude other training qualifications, it is specified that the 12 years graduate service should be after acquisition of collegiate training. What is meant by the said Explanation is that the training qualification must be a qualification at the college level and not an inferior training qualification. We find that the contention urged by the respondents is a plausible view. It is not stated in the Rule that the qualification must be B.T./L.T. or B.Ed. What is meant by the said Explanation is that the training qualification must be a qualification at the college level and not an inferior training qualification. We find that the contention urged by the respondents is a plausible view. It is not stated in the Rule that the qualification must be B.T./L.T. or B.Ed. obtained after studying in a college. On the contrary, the words used are - after acquisition of collegiate training, such as B.T/.L.T. or B.Ed. It only means that the graduate service must be service after obtaining B.T./L.T. or B.Ed. or similar qualification. 8. In the above view, we find that the Appeal lacks merit. The view taken by the learned single Judge cannot be said to be wrong. So, the Appeal is dismissed. O.P. NO. 7729/2000 T The very same point is raised in this Original Petition also. The 6th respondent who acquired B.Ed. qualification from Annamalai University through correspondence course has been promoted as Headmistress of Sree Narayana Vilasam Upper Primary School, Kannankara, Kozhikode. The petitioner who is a rival claimant challenges the same on the ground that the promotee is not qualified. In view of our decision in W.A. No. 183/2000, this Original Petition is also liable to be dismissed and we do so. No costs.