Judgment Ramachandran Nair The appellant joined the School as a Hindi Teacher in 2000 after acquiring M.A. and B.Ed in Hindi, whereas B.A. and B.Ed are the qualifications required for appointment as a Teacher in High School. However, after acquiring 5 years’ teaching experience, the appellant took leave and acquired M.Ed. degree and also NET qualification in the examination conducted by the UGC. With the M.A. degree with above 50% marks and the experience as HSA and other qualifications she acquired, she was eligible for appointment as a Lecturer in V.Ed. College in terms of the Special Rules, namely Kerala Collegiate Education Service Rules, 1994. Under the Special Rules, Lecturers in Training Colleges are appointed by “recruitment by transfer through PSC from among High School Assistants in the Kerala Education Subordinate Service. However, in the absence of qualified High School teachers for appointment under this category, appointment can be made by direct recruitment from general category. Qualifications required for appointment by transfer or by direct recruitment are the following:- “1. Masters degree in the concerned subject or discipline with at least 55% marks or its equivalent and good academic records. 2. M.Ed. degree with knowledge of special methods of teaching the subjects. 3. Three years teaching experience in schools or colleges after acquiring the professional qualifications. 4. Must have passed a comprehensive test specifically conducted for the purpose by UGC or any agency duly constituted by the State Government in this behalf. When qualifications are equal, preference shall be given to candidates who possess adequate knowledge in Malayalam.” The appellant has Post Graduate degree with M.Ed. and has also UGC qualification making her eligible to apply for the post. However, as on the date, the PSC invited applications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Hindi in the two B.Ed. Colleges in the State, though the appellant had more than six years’ experience as a High School Teacher, her experience after acquiring M.Ed. degree was less than three years, and therefore according to the PSC and the Government, Appellant did not have three year’s experience to apply for the post. Though the appellant applied for being considered under by transfer category and also under direct recruitment, she was rejected for the simple reason that her teaching experience of above 5 years with B.Ed. degree was not sufficient and the experience required is after acquiring M.Ed. Though the appellant applied for being considered under by transfer category and also under direct recruitment, she was rejected for the simple reason that her teaching experience of above 5 years with B.Ed. degree was not sufficient and the experience required is after acquiring M.Ed. The appellant challenged the orders rejecting her application and simultaneously challenged the above provision in the Special Rules for a declaration that she is entitled to be considered for appointment under by transfer category as she has the required teaching experience. Even though under interim orders, appellant underwent selection process the learned Single Judge rejected appellant’s claim by upholding the view of the respondents that the teaching experience required should be acquired after obtaining M.Ed degree. It is against this judgment, the appellant has filed this Writ Appeal. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the University and learned Government Pleader appearing for the Government. 3. The controversy is only as to whether the appellant’s teaching experience qualifies her for being considered for the post on transfer basis. Admittedly, the appellant has Masters degree with M.Ed. and has also UGC qualification and there is no controversy on this. However the case of the respondents which found acceptance with the learned Single Judge is that the 3 years’ teaching experience should be after acquiring the professional qualification, which is M.Ed and not B.Ed. Obviously the teaching experience required for eligibility for selection from the by transfer category is as High School teacher after acquiring the professional qualification. Admittedly, the appellant had five years’ teaching experience with B.Ed and one year’s experience as a Teacher in the High School after acquiring M.Ed degree. The question now to be considered is which is the “professional qualification” relevant for considering the teaching experience which is required after acquiring such qualification. The post is exclusively reserved for High School Teachers and therefore the teaching experience to be considered is that in the High School. The professional qualification required for High School Assistants is B.Ed and not M.Ed. The respondents admit that B.Ed is sufficient professional qualification for eligibility for appointment as a High School teacher. The appellant admittedly, had B.Ed even when she joined the School in 2000. The teaching experience that entitles a High School teacher to apply for Lecturer’s post in B.Ed. college is the teaching experience in the High School. The respondents admit that B.Ed is sufficient professional qualification for eligibility for appointment as a High School teacher. The appellant admittedly, had B.Ed even when she joined the School in 2000. The teaching experience that entitles a High School teacher to apply for Lecturer’s post in B.Ed. college is the teaching experience in the High School. Therefore, the professional qualification has to be necessarily B.Ed., which the appellant had from the very beginning. So much so, we hold that the professional qualification required for high school teacher being B.Ed degree, the experience gained as a Teacher with B.Ed degree is squarely covered by clause 3 of the Special Rules above stated. We, therefore, hold that the appellant with six years’ experience as a High School Assistant with B.Ed as on date of making application for the post of Lecturer was eligible to be considered. The Writ Appeal is therefore allowed by vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allow the WP(C) by quashing Exts.P7 & P8 orders issued by the PSC. We have to now consider the relief i.e. to be granted for the appellant because in the absence of eligible high school teachers, the respondents have filled up two vacancies out of 4 with direct recruitees. Even though learned counsel for the PSC and the learned Government Pleader submitted that the remaining two vacancies may be reserved for other community in the course of selection from general quota by direct recruitment, we do not think the appellant can be denied benefit because reservation comes only when there is no eligible candidate for appointment by transfer from High school. Since the appellant is eligible by virtue of the findings above, we direct the respondents to finalise appellant’s selection process and if she has participated in the interview and is otherwise eligible, she should be appointed in one of the remaining posts before appointing any other candidate. Appointment should be given within two months from receipt of this judgment. This Writ Appeal is allowed as above.