AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission. The entire issue revolves round the Rules pertaining to the Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary Education State Service Rules, 2004. The concerned Rule for our consideration is Rule 3 which pertains to method of appointment to various categories. The said Rules are at Annexure-A3 and we are concerned with Category No. 6(1)-Non-Vocational Teacher in English. Actually, Rule 3 says method of appointment and Rule 4 prescribes qualifications So far as method of appointment to the post of Non-Vocational Teacher in English is by transfer or by direct recruitment and the qualification required is enumerated at 6(1) which reads as under:-
6(1) (i)-Post Graduate Degree in English with not less than 50% marks awarded by any of the Universities in Kerala or an equivalent qualification.
(ii) (1) B.Ed Degree in the concerned subject acquired after a regular course of study from any of the Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by a University of Kerala.
(2) In the absence of persons with B.Ed Degree in the concerned subject. B.Ed. Degree in the concerned faculty as specified in the Acts and Statutes of the Universities in Kerala.
2(i) B.Ed Degree in the concerned subject acquired after a regular course of study from any of the Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by a University in Kerala.
(ii) In the absence of persons with B.Ed Degree in the concerned subject, B.Ed degree in the concerned faculty as specified in the Acts and Statutes of any of the Universities in Kerala.
(iii) In the absence of persons with B.Ed Degree as specified in item (i) and (ii) 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 recognised as equivalent thereto by any of the Universities in Kerala.
Must have passed the State Eligibility Test in the concerned subject for the post of Non-Vocational teacher conducted by Government of Kerala or by the agency authorized by the State Government.
A reading of the above qualifications would indicate that first priority would be given to B.Ed Degree in concerned subject after a regular course of study. So far as Clause (2) it will come into effect only in the absence of persons with B.Ed Degree in the concerned subject. Clause (iii) will come into operation only if Clauses (i) and (ii) are absent. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is having Post Graduate Degree in English with 50% mark but he has B.Ed Degree in Physical Science.
Apparently, there are three vacancies as of now. 13 applications having B.Ed in English are received by Public Service Commission. Going by the above Rules, in the absence of applicants with B.Ed Degree then only question of preferring other qualified candidates would come into picture. In the present case, for three posts, 13 applications are already received. Hence, there is no need to consider the applications of other candidates who have other qualifications. Apparently, the present candidate will fit in Clause (iii) i.e. B.Ed Degree in any subject. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in case these 13 applicants are found unfit to be appointed on account of various reasons, then all the efforts and exercises done by the Commission would be a futile one and persons like the petitioner could be denied of the opportunity to seek appointment under the special category. The intention of introducing such Rules was to see that preference is given to the degree holders in a particular subject and priority wise they have enumerated the qualification as well. In that view of the matter, as long as the Rule remains as it stands now, there cannot be any provision to consider the applications of persons like the petitioner anticipating a contingency which is not in existence at present.
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, KAT was justified in saying, there cannot be a direction to consider the application of the petitioner. So far as earlier judgment at Annexure-A5, it is not in dispute that the said judgment will support the contention raised by the present petitioner but it came to be reversed in W.A. No. 2684 of 2005 dated 19-1-2006. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot take any aid from Annexure A5 judgment. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2012.