JUDGMENT : The 2nd petitioner is the daughter of the 1st petitioner and they impugn Ext.P3 order, whereby, the former has been denied the benefit of a ‘Non Creamy Layer Certificate’, on the ground that the latter among them, as also his wife – the mother of the 2nd petitioner – joined service as Class II Officers, along with her husband, the 1st petitioner. 2. Smt.Malavika K. -learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that Ext.P3 has been issued by the 3rd respondent – Tahsildar without proper application of mind and without adverting to the Statutory Scheme because, as Ext.P6 would show, the 2nd petitioner’s mother did not join a Class II post directly, but only after having served as an Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) in an Aided School. She argued that when this fact remains uncontroverted, the declarations is Ext.P12 judgment would come to play, wherein, it has been settled that the term ‘gets into Class I/Group A’ – as available in the Statutory Scheme -cannot mean that it should only be by promotion or deputation – which is to mean that it can also be through a Direct Recruitment process. She contended that since when the mother of the 2nd petitioner was initially appointed in Class III/Group C, namely as a UPSA, the Tahsildar has acted in gross error, in having issued Ext.P3. She thus prayed that the said order be set aside. 3. Sri.P.S.Appu – learned Government Pleader, however, submitted that the declarations in Ext.P12 judgment would not apply to the petitioners at all because, contrary to the facts noticed by the learned Judge therein, Ext.P6 would establish that the mother of the 2nd petitioner -who is the wife of the 1st, was directly recruited to a Class II Post as Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) in Chemistry, on 13.06.2018. He argued that, therefore, she can only be construed to have been directly recruited to a Class II Post; and hence that the rigour of Ext.P8 Government Order stand against the petitioners. 4. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of the learned Government Pleader without further scrutiny. He argued that, therefore, she can only be construed to have been directly recruited to a Class II Post; and hence that the rigour of Ext.P8 Government Order stand against the petitioners. 4. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of the learned Government Pleader without further scrutiny. This is because, as rightly argued by Smt.Malavika K., while dealing with the case of a father, who had entered Class I/Group A post, a learned Judge of this Court in Ext.P12 declared without doubt as under, adverting to the Government Order, bearing No.81/09/SCSTDD dated 26.09.2009: 9. The terms used in Ext.P11 G.O. is “gets into Class I/Group A”. Therefore the appointment into a higher Class/Group need not be by promotion or deputation. In the case of the petitioner, the petitioner's father was appointed in Indo Swiss Project, which is a Government Project. It is evident from Ext.P12 that the said project was subsequently brought under Kerala Livestock Development and Milk Marketing Board Ltd. which is a Government of Kerala undertaking. 10. The facts as evident from the pleadings and arguments would therefore amply show that the Entry Cadre of petitioner's father was neither Group A or Group B. His Entry Cadre is to be taken as Veterinary Surgeon in the pay scale of Rs.445- 835. The said Cadre would not fall under either Class I/Group A or Class II/Group B. Therefore denial of Non Creamy layer Certificate to the petitioner on that ground cannot stand the scrutiny of law. 5. It is without contest that the afore judgment has been accepted by the Government and that the directions therein have been complied with. 6. Coming to the facts of this, the 2nd petitioner’s mother concededly joined service as a UPSA, which, by every definition and as expressly admitted, is included as a Class III/Group C Post. Ext.P12 Government Order renders it without ambiguity that, in the case of children of parents, both of whom are Class II officers directly recruited, they would stand excluded from the benefit of being granted ‘Non Creamy Layer Certificate’. 7. Ext.P12 Government Order renders it without ambiguity that, in the case of children of parents, both of whom are Class II officers directly recruited, they would stand excluded from the benefit of being granted ‘Non Creamy Layer Certificate’. 7. In the case at hand, though the 1st petitioner is conceded to be a Class II Officer, who was directly recruited, when it comes to the case of his wife -namely the mother of 2nd petitioner, she did not initially join service as a Class II Officer, but as only as a UPSA, which, as I have already said above, is included in Class III/Group C. When the respondents have no contest to this, the only other question this Court needs to consider is whether the factum of the mother of the 2nd petitioner having then been appointed as an HSST in Chemistry in an Aided School-which is undoubtedly a Class II post -pursuant to Ext.P6, would repudiate her right of being granted with a ‘Non Creamy Layer Certificate’. 8. Here, the declarations in Ext.P12 judgment certainly comes to the aid of the 2nd petitioner because, as I have already said above, this Court has already held unequivocally that it is the initial appointment which is relevant, notwithstanding whether the appointment to a higher category thereafter is by promotion or deputation or directly. 9. When Ext.P12 declares ineluctably that the appointment into a higher Class/Group need not be by promotion or deputation, it can only be construed that this can also be by other methods, including Direct Recruitment. 10. That said, Ext.P6 perspicuously demonstrate that the 2nd petitioner’s mother was selected by a Committee constituted as per the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), to be appointed as an HSST in Chemistry and that she was, until then, working as a UPSA in the Aided School in question. 11. It is recognized judicially –being statutorily prescribed, that there are two streams of appointment to the post of HSST under the ‘KER’, namely through promotion and direct recruitment. The 2nd petitioner’s mother was chosen for appointment through the second mode; and Ext.P6 renders it luculent that she was appointed to the post of HSST (Chemistry) only with effect from 13.06.2018. It is recognized judicially –being statutorily prescribed, that there are two streams of appointment to the post of HSST under the ‘KER’, namely through promotion and direct recruitment. The 2nd petitioner’s mother was chosen for appointment through the second mode; and Ext.P6 renders it luculent that she was appointed to the post of HSST (Chemistry) only with effect from 13.06.2018. In the afore factual backdrop and scenario, it would not require any further expatiation, being guided by the declarations in Ext.P12 judgment that, solely because the 2nd petitioner’s mother entered a Class II Post through direct recruitment with effect from 13.06.2018, she would not stand disentitled to the ‘Non Creamy Layer Certificate’ within the ambit of Ext.P8 Government Order. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Exts.P1 and P3; with a consequential direction to the competent among respondents 2 to 4 to reconsider the application of the petitioners and issue appropriate orders, adverting to the observations in this judgment as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I, however, clarify that, even though the Authorities will be obligated to consider the case of the petitioners, it shall be done confirming all other statutory requirements to be satisfied; and further that, they will not be influenced by the fact that 2nd petitioner’s mother is presently a Class II Officer. To be spoken to on 23.01.2024 This matter has been listed today for being spoken to at the request of the learned Government Pleader, who submitted that, against Ext.P12 judgment, an Appeal has been preferred before a learned Division Bench and that the same is pending. It is well recognized that, merely because an Appeal is pending, it would not inhibit this Court from following a precedent, particularly when I am in affirmation with the declarations therein. In the afore circumstances, I do not deem it necessary to modify the judgment; but nevertheless, clarify that the directions herein will be subject to the decision to be taken by the learned Division Bench in the Appeal aforementioned.