ORDER
B.N. Srikrishna, CJ.
1. This appeal has been placed before the Full Bench by an order of reference dated 10th January, 2002, made by the Division Bench of K.S.Radhakrishnan and K.Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. as the Division Bench had a doubt with regard to the correctness of the ruling of another Division Bench in Sindhu v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2001 (2) KLT 507) interpreting Rule 2 (2)(b) (i) of Chapter XXXI of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'K.E.R.').
2. Under Chapter XXXI of the K.E.R., Rule 2 (2)(b) prescribes the qualification for appointment of High School Assistant to teach different languages, i.e. (i) Malayalam; (ii) Tamil, (iii) Sanskrit, (iv) Hindi, (v) Arabic, (vi) Urdu, (vii) Kannada (viii) Gujarathy and (ix) French. As far as High School Assistants for teaching Malayalam, Tamil, Sanskrit, Arabic, Urdu and Kannada are concerned, the qualification prescribed are a basic degree in the subject coupled with B.Ed./B.T./L.T. conferred or recognised by the Universities in Kerala or a title in Oriental learning in the subject concerned, awarded by the Universities in Kerala, coupled with a certificate in Language Teachers Training issued by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala. For High School Assistants teaching Gujarathy and Kannada, the requisite qualification are a degree in the subject together with B.Ed./B.T./L.T. conferred or recognised by the Universities in Kerala.
3. When it comes to High School Assistant (Hindi), the rules make a deviation from the above pattern. Rule 2(2)(iv) of Chapter XXI, K.E.R., which prescribes the academic qualification and training qualification for High School Assistant in Hindi, reads as under:
'iv. High School Assistant (Hindi): The candidate shall possess any one of the academic qualifications and a training qualification as specified below:
A. ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION :
A degree in Hindi conferred or recognised by the Universities in Kerala; or
A title of Oriental Learning in Hindi awarded or recognised by the Universities in Kerala; or
Praveen of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar. Sabha, Madras with a pass in the S.S.L.C.
Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala, or its equivalent; or
Sahithyacharya of Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha with a pass in S.S.L.C. Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent.
B. TRAINING QUALIFICATION :
B.Ed./B.T./L.T. conferred or recognised by the Universities in Kerala or Diploma or Certificate of Language Teachers Training in Hindi issued by the; Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or
Diploma in Hindi Teachers Training issued by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala.
A pass in any one of the following examinations of the Kendriya Hindi Sikshan Mandal, Agra namely;
(i) Hindi SikshaPraveeen,
(ii) Hindi Sikshan Parangath, and
(iii) Hindi Sikshan Nishnat.
Explanation I:- Persons who have successfully undergone Pracharak Diploma of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha upto and including the academic Year 1969-70 shall be considered to possess the requisite training qualification.
Explanation II:- Persons who have successfully undergone the Course in Hindi Teachers Diploma course of the Regional Hindi Training College Gandhigram, Madura during the academic year 1967-68 or prior to that year shall be considered to possess the requisite training qualifications. Explanation III: Persons who have successfully undergone the Acharya Course of the Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha upto and including the academic year 1969-70 shall be consideredto possess the requisite training qualification'.
The prescribed qualifications are bifurcated into (A) Academic and (B) Training. It is only in the training qualifications that the options mentioned are B.Ed./B .T./L.T. and the other training qualifications pertaining to teachers training in Hindi.
4. A question that has uniformly troubled this Court is, whether the training qualification B.Ed. mentioned in the above Rules should be a B.Ed. in any subject or a B.Ed. with the optional subject which the teacher is required to teach.
5. In Girija v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 658) the learned Single Judge took the view that prescribed qualification for High School Assistant (Hindi) did not require the B.Ed. to be in the optional subject of Hindi. In Sindhu v. Kerala Public Service Commission (supra), a Division Bench interpreted Rule 2(2)(i) of Chapter XXXI of K.E.R. pertaining to the prescribed qualification for High School Assistant (Malayalam) and held that the B.Ed. need not be in Malayalam. For arriving at this conclusion, the Division Bench sought support from the fact that irrespective of the basic academic qualifications, when it comes to training qualification, B.Ed./B.T./L.T. were bracketed together, and there is no material to suggest that with regard to B.T. and L.T. there is any optional subject available. Consequently, the Division Bench was of the view that, if with regard to B .T. and L.T. the optional subject was not the subject to be taught, there was no necessity to read and import this requirement into the qualification of B.Ed., particularly when the rule was silent regarding the optional subject of B.Ed.. The Division Bench also relied on the decision in Girija 's case (supra). The situation was complicated by a clarification, note by a Government Order, but by a letter issued by the State Government. The Division Bench relying on the judgment of this Court in Jesilet v.State of Kerala (1987(2) KLT 984) held that, once a rule fully and adequately prescribes qualifications for a post, the State Government in exercise of its executive powers cannot alter the qualifications for eligibility, without amending the rules themselves. It also relied on the judgment of another Division Bench in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Prasanna Kumari (I.L.R. 1997(1) Kerala 319) wherein it was held that once the qualification have appeared in the advertisement inviting applications, those qualifications cannot be changed unilaterally, for doing so would be arbitrary and liable to be interfered with. Finally, in Sindhu's case (supra), the Division Bench held that, so long as the candidate possesses the qualification which is notified, which qualification is in accordance with the rules, it cannot be said that such a candidate is not qualified for the only reason that the training qualification of B.Ed. is not in the concerned subject. So long as there is no prescription to that effect, and as long as the rule/notification regarding qualification is not amended, it cannot be insisted that a candidate should possess training qualification of B.Ed. in the concerned subject.
6. In the reference order, the Division Bench of K.S. Radhakrishnan and K.Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. felt that it could not fully endorse the view in Sindhu (supra). It was also of the view that it was difficult to hold that the rule making authority had ever envisaged that a person who has taken B.Ed. in Natural Science as Training Qualification could be appointed as High School Assistant (Hindi). Having entertained this doubt, a reference was made for reconsideration of Sindhu's case.
7. We have with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing in the matter, perused the relevant rules which deal with the qualification for High School Assistants teaching different languages. We have already noticed that they fall in three distinct groups. We also notice that the alternate qualification prescribed i.e., Oriental Learning in the Language together with the certificate in the Language Teachers Training issued by the Commissioner of Government Examinations, Kerala, does not in any way require that the certificate should be with reference to the subject to be taught. We are, therefore, inclined to agree with the view expressed in Sindhu (supra) that bracketing B.Ed./B.T./L.T. is indicative of the fact that the optional subject is not be kept in mind, particularly when no such optional subject is shown to have existed in the qualifications of B.T. or L.T.
8. Mr. Devan, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the rules have made a distinct departure when it comes to High School Assistant (Hindi), and hence, we should interpret the qualification B.Ed. of the training qualification in Rule2 (2)(b)(iv) as meaning B.Ed. in Hindi only. He also contends that acareful reading of the training qualifications enumerated in Para B would indicate that all the alternatives are like Diploma or Certificate of Language Teachers Training in Hindi, or passing in any one of the examinations of the Kendriya Hindi Sikshan Mandal, Agra, such as Hindi Siksha Praveen, Hindi Sikshan Parangath, and Hindi Sikshan Nishnat. All these, according to the learned counsel, suggest that the emphasis is on teachers training in teaching Hindi language. Hence, learned counsel contended that the B.Ed. qualification prescribed as training qualification for a High School Assistant (Hindi) must necessarily be equivalent to Hindi Teachers Training given in the various options. Ergo, the B.Ed. qualification also must be with Hindi as optional subject. Prima facie, the argument, no doubt, is attractive. But, we cannot make a radical departure only for interpreting Rule2(2)(b)(i v) of Chapter XXXI of K.E.R. as that principle would equally be applicable to the interpretation of other clauses of Rule 2(2)(b) of Chapter XXXI. We have already pointed out that the Certificate in Language Teachers Training is not required to be in a particular language. Thus, there is no reason why we should hold that B.Ed. prescribed in Sub-rules (2)(a), or (2)(b) (i),or (ii), or (iii), or (v), Or (vi), or (vii), or (viii) or (ix) of Rule2 of Chapter XXXI should be in the subject concerned. In all the subjects referred to in Clauses(i) to (ix) of Rule 2(2), B.Ed/B.T./L.T. have always been bracketed. If there was no optional subject for B.T. and L.T., we see no pressing for importing that concept for interpretation while dealing with B.Ed. training qualification required under the said Rules.
9. Forall these years, the rules have been interpreted by the rule making authority, the State Government in the Educational Department, as also by the teachers and the Managers of the schools in a particular manner. B.Ed. qualification with the optional subject has never been considered as required. It would, therefore, be quite needless to upset the apple cart and unsettle the position by a judicial interpretative process at this point of time. Firstly, the interpretation would apply retrospectively from the date on which the rule was enacted. Secondly, it would defeat the legitimate expectations of large number of persons who may have obtained B.Ed. or its equivalent in other subjects with a view to get promotion by virtue of Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A, of K.E.R.. In any case, the litera legis is clear and leads to no ambiguity, though it could have been better worded. Finally, the life of law is not logic but convenience, as Justice Holmes said.
10. Though the Division Bench making the reference, referred to the judgment of Anilkumar v. Beena (2000 (1) KLT 286) we do not think that the said judgment really helps in deciding the issue before us. That was a case involving application of Rule 51-A of Chapter XIV-A. In any event, we are of the view that because of Rule 51-A of Chapter XIV-A, we cannot read something that is not in Rule 2 (2)(b)(iv) of Chapter XXXI of K.E.R. as has been suggested. The doctrine of casus omissus forbids the court from supplying what has been missed by the law maker by an interpretative process. [See in this connection the decision in Maruthi Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. S.T.O., 1st Circle, Mattancherry, 2001 (3) SCC 735].
11. For all these reasons, we uphold the view taken in Sindhu v. Kerala Public Service Commission (supra) as correct in law. Though we uphold the litera legis and the view taken in Sindhu (supra), we strongly recommend to the State Government that if the State Government is of the view that training qualification of a teacher must be in the subject concerned, then they must immediately amend the rule to that effect. We are informed that by notification, G.O. (P) No. 144/2001/G1. Edn. dated 16.4.2001, the Special Rules for Kerala Higher Secondary Education Subordinate Service have been framed, which prescribe the qualifications of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) and the principle of the training qualification in the concerned subject appears to have adopted therein. It is time for the State Government to consider seriously whether the same principle should be made applicable under the K.E.R. also and act quickly to avoid unnecessary litigation.
12. In the result, we answer the reference as under:
The judgment in Sindhu v. Kerala Public Service Commission (supra) correctlydecides the interpretation to be given to Rule 2 (2) of Chapter XXXI of K.E.R.
The appeal be placed before the appropriate Division Bench for disposal inaccordance with law as decided by us.