AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sathish Ninan, J
W.P.(C) No.6916 of 2012 is filed challenging the Government Order granting approval to the appointment of the 7th respondent as HSST (Sociology) in the S.N.V. Higher Secondary and Vocational Higher Secondary School, Angadikkal South, Kodumon, Pathanamthitta District. The said 7th respondent has filed W.P.(C) No.21614/2015 challenging the prescription of educational qualification for the post.
Ext.P1 is the notification dated 25.05.2001, inviting applications for appointment of HSST in the School in various subjects, including Sociology, with which we are concerned. It is relevant to refer to Chapter XXXII, Rule 6, Sl.28, which prescribes the qualification to the post:-
Sl.
No.
Category
Method of Appointment
Qualification
28
Sociology
Appointment By transfer (i) and by direct appointment
(i) Master's Degree in the concerned subject with not less than 50% marks from any of the Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognized as equivalent thereto in the respective subject by a University in Kerala.
(ii)(1). B.Ed. in the concerned subject acquired after a regular course of study from any of the Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognized as equivalent thereto by a University in Kerala.
(2) In the absence of persons with B.Ed. Degree in the concerned subject B.Ed. Degree acquired in any one of the subjects under the concerned Faculty as specified in the Acts/Statutes of any of the Universities in Kerala.
(3) In the absence of persons with B.Ed. degree as specified in items (1) and (2) above, persons with B.Ed. Degree in any subject acquired after a regular course of study from any of the Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognized as equivalent thereto by any of the Universities in Kerala.
As per the Rule, for appointment to the post, the candidate must possess B.Ed in Sociology. In the absence of persons with B.Ed in the concerned subject, B.Ed degree in any of the subjects under the concerned faculty, as specified in the Acts/Statues of any of the Universities of Kerala, would be sufficient. The Rule contains a further provision that, in the absence of B.Ed degree holders in the concerned subject and in any of the subjects under the concerned faculty, then B.Ed degree holders in any other subject could be considered.
The petitioner was the holder of B.Ed. Degree in Social Science. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, petitioner applied to the post. The petitioner was the only candidate. Since the Manager was not taking steps for appointment, she filed OP 29497/2001. This Court directed the Director, Higher Education Department to consider the petitioner's grievance. Pursuant thereto, the Director passed Ext.P4 order dated 29.07.2002 that, the very notification (Ext.P1) is not legal and valid since there existed a ban on appointment of HSST, by the Honourable Supreme Court, during the period 14.11.2000 to 12.11.2001. The Manager was directed to issue fresh notification for the post of HSST (Sociology).
Pursuant thereto, the Manager issued a fresh notification Ext.P5. The petitioner participated in the selection process, along with the 7th respondent and others. The 7th respondent was selected and appointed. The 7th respondent also did not possess the educational qualification of B.Ed (Sociology). Her qualification was B.Ed in Natural Science.
The petitioner had filed W.P.(C) NO.17037/2003, before this court challenging Ext.P5 notification. The writ petition was later amended challenging the appointment of the 7th respondent. The 7th respondent filed W.P.(C) No.23706/2004, seeking direction for approval of her appointment. This court as per Ext.P7 judgment, disposed of the writ petitions, directing the Director of Higher Secondary Education to consider the issue of approval after hearing the petitioner, the 7th respondent, and the Manager.
In compliance with the direction, the Director heard the parties and passed Ext.P8 order dated 19.05.2008, rejecting the approval of appointment of the 7th respondent. It was noticed that none of the candidates who appeared for selection possessed B.Ed (Sociology). It was also noticed that the petitioner herein had not produced any documentary evidence to prove that Sociology and Social Science came under the same faculty. It was observed that, the candidate having B.Ed in Social Science is a better candidate than the holder of B.Ed in Natural Science for appointment against the post of HSST (Sociology). The appointment of the 7th respondent was held to be irregular and not in conformity with the Rules.
The 7th respondent challenged the order before the Government. As per Ext.P11 order dated 20.10.2011, the revision petition was allowed. It was held that, none of the candidates had the prescribed qualification of B.Ed (Sociology). It was also held that the petitioner herein failed to produce any proof to show that B.Ed (Social Science) is in the same faculty as Sociology. It was noticed that, in the absence of qualification as above, the interview board considered all the candidates including the petitioner and the 7th respondent in the same category viz. candidates having B.Ed in “any subject”. In the interview, the 7th respondent was ranked No.2. Since the first rank holder did not join, the petitioner was appointed. The appointment of the 7th respondent was thus approved. It is challenging the same that W.P.(C) No.6916/2012 has been filed.
In W.P.(C) No.21614/2015, the educational qualification prescribed is under challenge.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 7th respondent, the Manager and also the learned Senior Government Pleader.
The initial challenge raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is against Ext.P4 order, which held the original notification (Ext.P1) as invalid. However, in Exhibit P7, common judgment in W.P. (C) Nos.17037/2003 and 23706/2004, referred to the earlier, this Court held:-
“3. Although the reasoning given in Ext.P6 may not be correct, I am of the opinion that simply because the manager had issued a notification and received one application, he is not legally bound to proceed with the selection process with the sole applicant. A manager who is concerned with the standards of education in his school is certainly entitled to insist that he should have more competent applicants for selection from among. Therefore, I am not inclined to countenance the contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17037/03.”
In the light thereof, the petitioner is precluded from raising any challenge with regard to the same.
As regards the challenge against Ext.P11, admittedly none of the candidates possessed B.Ed in Sociology. As per the Rules, at the second stage, in the absence of B.Ed holders in Sociology, B.Ed holders in any one of the subjects under the concerned faculty could be considered. It is not in dispute that the 7th respondent did not possess B.Ed in any subject under the same faculty of Sociology. The petitioner claimed that her degree in B.Ed (Social Science) is one of the subjects under the same faculty of Sociology, and hence she is qualified. The Government in Ext.P11 order, noticed that the petitioner failed to produce any material to show that the optional subject of her B.Ed degree belongs to the same faculty of Sociology. In the absence of any holders of B.Ed degree in any of the subjects under the concerned faculty, the candidate having B.Ed in any subject could be considered. Accordingly all the candidates were considered in the same category. In the interview, the 7th respondent was ranked as No.2. The first rank holder did not join. It is accordingly that the 7th respondent was appointed.
As was noticed, the petitioner had failed to produce any material before the interview board, before the Director of Higher Secondary Education and also before the Government to prove that B.Ed in Social Science belong to the same faculty of Sociology. In Ext.P11 order, it was specifically stated that, it is on the failure of the petitioner to produce any such material, that all the candidates were considered in the common category. In spite of the same, even before this Court, but for contending that Social Science is a subject under the same faculty as Sociology, the petitioner has not chosen to produce any material to substantiate the contention. Having failed to prove such claim of the petitioner, it can only be held that the Government was justified in its conclusions in Ext.P11 order. The petitioner could not establish that she is better qualified than the 7th respondent. Ext.P11 order has taken into consideration all the relevant aspects. No interference is called for with Ext.P11 order.
As regards W.P.(C) No.21614/2015, the petitioner therein having participated in the selection process is not entitled to challenge the prescriptions of qualifications. At any rate, in the light of the conclusion arrived at in the connected writ petition, this writ petition turns out to be unnecessary.
Resultantly, the writ petitions are dismissed.