Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943 WP(C).No.14596 OF 2013(Y) PETITIONERS:
1 PRIYA DAS, EATTUNGAPPADY HOUSE, AZHAKAM, MOOKKANNOOR, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2 DHANYA C. BALAN, ELAVUMKUDY HOUSE, VARIKKADU, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3 PREETHY.T.M., THANIVEEDU HOUSE, SREEMOOLANAGARAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4 HIMA RAJ.R., RAJ BHAVAN HOUSE, S.VAZHAKULAM P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5 REJITHA JOSE, KOLENCHERY HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6 ANUSREE V.S., VADAKKAM HOUSE, NELLAD P.O., NELLAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7 K.P.JANATT, CHERUTHURUTHY HOUSE, SREEMOOLANAGARAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. By SRI.P.M.MANOJ-SR.GP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 14596/13 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of April 2021 The petitioners say that they are fully qualified to be
appointed as Pre-primary Teachers and have produced Exhibit P1 series documents in substantiation. They have approached this Court assailing Exhibit P6 order dated 25.04.2013, as per which, unqualified Pre-primary Teachers working in various Government Schools have been granted honorarium in tune with the directions of this Court in
Exhibit P4 judgment and contend that this was illegal and impermissible, since only qualified teachers could have been granted such benefits.
2. I have heard Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.L.Navaneeth Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Before moving forward with the evaluation of the rival contentions, I deem it appropriate to re-produce the prayers sought for by the petitioners in this writ petition as under:
i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to ext.P6 and to quash the same to the extent to which it contained the recognition of unqualified teachers and Aayas as teachers and Aayas of preprimary school in Ext.P6 Government Order. WPC 14596/13 3
ii) Issue a writ order or direction declaring that neither the statutory provision nor the judgment of this Court recognizes or enables the approval of unqualified persons to be appointed as teachers or Aayas and that such a prescription in Ext.P6 will defeat the very object of conducting of pre school attached to the school. iii) Issue writ order or direction commanding the respondent to ensure the appointment of qualified teachers as pre schools teachers in terms of the statutory prescription to achieve the object of the preschool concept. iv) Issue such other writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case.”
4. The afore prayers have been extracted because I am of the
firm opinion that petitioners have not approached this Court impelling any individual grievance, but have assailed Exhibit P6 virtually in public interest. This is because, as the afore prayers would show, the petitioners have not sought that they be appointed as Pre-primary Teachers to any School or that specified individuals, who are not qualified, be expelled. They have only chosen to challenge Exhibit P6, which does not, in any manner, interdict their appointment, but only offer some benefit to a class of persons who were in service prior to 01.08.2012.
5. This aspect becomes evident from Exhibit P6, which orders
that the teachers who had a minimum of one year service as on 01.08.2012 and who are not qualified as per the prescriptions, would still be eligible to obtain honorarium as mentioned therein. The relevance of the date 01.08.2012 becomes manifest when one WPC 14596/13 4 examines Exhibit P4 judgment issued by this Court of the said date.
6. Therefore, I fail to understand how Exhibit P6 would cause
any detriment to the petitioners because it only grants certain benefits to a class of teachers who had put in a minimum of one year service at the time when Exhibit P4 judgment was delivered. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that Government ought not to have granted any such benefit to unqualified teachers, it is beyond comprehension as to how this will affect the petitioners, particularly when they concede that they have not been appointed to any school and this becomes even more pertinent because, for the last more than seven years when this matter has been pending before this Court, nothing has been placed on record by them to show that they had either applied for being appointed to any school where there were unqualified teachers, or that such claims had been rejected by any competent authority.
7. Therefore, merely because, allegedly, certain unqualified
teachers were granted the benefits as ordered through Exhibit P6 order, I cannot see any cause having been made out by the petitioners to approach this Court with the afore prayers. As I have already said above, the prayers above extracted have been framed more or less in the manner justifying a public interest litigation, especially when they have not sought that they be appointed to any school nor have they
WPC 14596/13 5 produced anything on record to show that they have made any application for such.
8. In the afore circusmtances, I do not deem it necessary -
particularly after efflux of nearly eight years, when this matter has been pending before this Court - to issue any further orders in favour of the petitioners.
9. I, however, make it clear that the benefits granted to the
specified class of teachers in Exhibit P6 would only be applicable to them and cannot be made available to any other class in future, when an appropriate scheme is framed by the Government with respect to the pre-primary section of the Government Schools, as ordered through Exhibit P4 judgment of this Court.
This writ petition is thus ordered. Sd/- Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv WPC 14596/13 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 14.2.2007. EXHIBIT P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 17.8.2011. EXHIBIT P1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 17.8.2011. EXHIBIT P1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 29.5.2012. EXHIBIT P1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 29.5.2012. EXHIBIT P1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER DATED 29.5.2012. EXHIBIT P1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER DATED 7.1.2008. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.MS.NO.43/84/GL.EDN. DATED 14.3.1984. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.179/03/GED DATED 4.7.2003. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.205/2011 DATED 1.8.2012. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.385/2012/GEDN. DATED 7.12.2012. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.146/20133/ E.EDN. DATED 25.4.2013. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR PRE-SCHOOL TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMME. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE