Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1164 (KER)

Rajashree A. v. VS State of Kerala

2025-05-13

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. These two writ petitions are based on same set of facts and give rise to same questions of law. They are therefore heard and disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and exhibits are referred to in this judgment as they are described and marked in WP(C) No.39300/2024, unless otherwise specified. 2. The petitioner joined service as HSA (Natural Science) in the School managed by the 4 th respondent on 06.06.2001. The appointment was approved. Later, she was appointed as HSST (Sociology) by-transfer, on 15.07.2021 as per Ext.P1. The petitioner states that the 5 th respondent was appointed as UPST on 04.09.1993. She was promoted as HST (Social Science) only on 16.07.2007. 3. The 5 th respondent objected to the appointment of the petitioner as HSST. Thereupon, the 3 rd respondent-Deputy Director issued Ext.P3 order dated 29.10.2021 rejecting the claim of the 5 th respondent, holding that the petitioner is senior in the category of HST. The 5 th respondent challenged Ext.P3 order, before the Government. The Government passed Ext.P5 order dated 26.03.2022 rejecting the claim of the 5 th respondent. 4. Thereafter, the 5 th respondent filed WP(C) No.13762/2022 challenging Ext.P5. This Court directed the Government to take a decision on the claim of the 5 th respondent in the light of the observation made in Ext.P6 judgment. To the surprise of the petitioner, the Government issued Ext.P7 order dated 01.11.2024 directing to appoint the 5 th respondent as HSST. In Ext.P7, it was stated that both the petitioner and the 5 th respondent are not possessing B.Ed. Degree in the subject concerned and the 5 th respondent possesses B.Ed. Degree in Social Science which is in the same faculty as Sociology, whereas the petitioner’s B.Ed. Degree is in Natural Science which is not in the same faculty. 5. The petitioner states that the fact that the 5 th respondent’s B.Ed. Degree is in the same faculty cannot be a ground to supersede the petitioner for appointment by transfer as HSST, ignoring her seniority. Ext.P7 is against the law laid down in Valsala Kumari Devi v. Director, Higher Secondary Education and others [ 2007 (4) KLT 494 ]. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to set aside Ext.P7. 6. WP(C) No.9315/2025 has been filed by the 5 th respondent in WP(C) No.39300/2025. Ext.P7 is against the law laid down in Valsala Kumari Devi v. Director, Higher Secondary Education and others [ 2007 (4) KLT 494 ]. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to set aside Ext.P7. 6. WP(C) No.9315/2025 has been filed by the 5 th respondent in WP(C) No.39300/2025. Pursuant to Ext.P7 order in WP(C) No.39300/2024, the 5 th respondent was appointed as HSST as per an order dated 20.11.2024 (Ext.P8 in WP(C) No.9315/2025). The 5 th respondent seeks to direct the 3 rd respondent-DEO to approve the by-transfer appointment of the 5 th respondent as HSST as per the said Ext.P8 order. The 5 th respondent submits that the legal issue involved is decided by the inter-party judgment in WP(C) No.13762/2022 and the order impugned by the petitioner is only a consequential order. As long as the judgment in WP(C) No.13762/2022 is not subjected to challenge, Ext.P7 cannot be impugned. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 8. The petitioner was appointed as HSA (Natural Science), on 06.06.2001 as per Ext.P1. The 5 th respondent was appointed as HST (Social Science) on 16.07.2007. When a vacancy of HSST (Sociology) arose, the petitioner was appointed as HSST (Sociology) by-transfer on 15.07.2021 as per Ext.P1, since the petitioner was senior in the category of HST. Though the 5 th respondent took up the matter before the Deputy Director and the Government, both the authorities initially upheld the appointment granted to the petitioner as HSST as per Ext.P3 and Ext.P5, stating that she is senior to the 5 th respondent. 9. The 5 th respondent, thereupon, filed WP(C) No.13762/2022. This Court disposed of the said writ petition as per Ext.P6 judgment, observing as follows:- 6. As per Chapter V of the Kerala University First Ordinance , 1978, the faculty of Social Science includes Sociology, whereas the faculty of the B.Ed Natural Science is not included in the faculty of Science. 9. The 5 th respondent, thereupon, filed WP(C) No.13762/2022. This Court disposed of the said writ petition as per Ext.P6 judgment, observing as follows:- 6. As per Chapter V of the Kerala University First Ordinance , 1978, the faculty of Social Science includes Sociology, whereas the faculty of the B.Ed Natural Science is not included in the faculty of Science. As per the Rules, the equivalency from any one of the Universities will be sufficient, and under such circumstances, the petitioner's claims ought to have been considered, taking note of the fact that Sociology is a subject coming within the Faculty of Social Science and going by the Rules extracted above the petitioner's claims ought to have been considered when it is stated that the B.Ed of the sixth respondent is not in the concerned subject. It is only in cases where both Teachers did not have a B.Ed in the concerned subject will the claim arise under the second alternative. The Government counter also proceeds on the basis that the sixth respondent is senior to the petitioner. There is no reference to the qualification fixed, though it is conceded that the petitioner has a B.Ed (Social Science), which is a faculty of Sociology, whereas there is no finding that the sixth respondent has a B.Ed in the concerned subject. The appointment of the sixth respondent cannot be considered solely on the basis of seniority. Under such circumstances, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, and it is only to be quashed. Holding so, this Court directed the Government to take a decision on the claims of the 5 th respondent. 10. The Government heard the petitioner and the 5 th respondent. The Government noted that as per Rule 6.2.28 Chapter XXXII of the KER, the qualification prescribed for appointment as HSST Sociology is Masters Degree in the concerned subject, B.Ed. in the concerned subject and pass in the SET. In the absence of candidates having the said qualifications, candidate with Masters Degree in concerned subject, B.Ed. in anyone of the subjects under the concerned faculty / B.Ed. in any subject and pass in SET can be considered. 11. The petitioner has MA (Sociology) and B.Ed. (Natural Science). The petitioner has 10 years Teaching Experience and need not possess SET. The 5 th respondent has MA (Sociology), B.Ed. (Social Science) and SET (Sociology). in anyone of the subjects under the concerned faculty / B.Ed. in any subject and pass in SET can be considered. 11. The petitioner has MA (Sociology) and B.Ed. (Natural Science). The petitioner has 10 years Teaching Experience and need not possess SET. The 5 th respondent has MA (Sociology), B.Ed. (Social Science) and SET (Sociology). Sociology and Social Science are in the same faculty. 12. The petitioner does not possess B.Ed in the concerned subject or in the faculty concerned. On the other hand, the 5 th respondent has B.Ed. in the concerned faculty. Therefore, the Government, as per Ext.P7, held that the 5 th respondent is qualified and should be appointed as HSST (Sociology) by-transfer, in preference to the petitioner. I do not find any illegality in the said decision. WP(C) No.39300/2024 is therefore dismissed. WP(C) No.9315/2025 is disposed of directing the 3 rd respondent therein to approve the by-transfer appointment of the 5 th respondent-writ petitioner granted as per Ext.P8 therein.