[Kerala Education Rules] Acharya Certificate Issued By Hindi Prachar Sabha Can Be Treated As Collegiate Training Such As B.Ed: High Court

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that the the Acharya certificate issued by the Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha can be treated as a collegiate training such as B.T, L.T or B.Ed as provided under Explanation I to Rule 44A of Chapter XIV(A) of Kerala Education Rules (KER). 

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan passed the above order while considering a case relating to promotion of a High School Assistant to the post of Headmaster following 13 years of graduate service. 

"For deciding the same, this Court has to read Rule (2) of Chapter XXXI of KER read with Explanation (1) to Rule 44A of Chapter XIV(A) of KER. There the graduate service is explained to the effect that the graduate service should be after acquisition of collegiate training such as B.T, L.T or B.Ed. Rule 44A Chapter of XIV(A) also states the minimum qualification for appointment as Headmaster. Since the explanation clearly says that after acquisition of collegiate training such as B.T, L.T or B.Ed, the candidate should be in graduate service as defined in that explanation. Hence it is clear that the qualification of B.T, L.T or B.Ed alone are not included but such other qualifications are also included," the Court observed.

The Court noted that what exactly is meant by 'collegiate training' has not been defined in Kerala Education Act and Rules, and therefore, the simple meaning of collegiate training that refers to training in a college would have to be accepted. 

"Therefore there cannot be a dispute to the fact that the Acharya Examination of Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha is a collegiate training in the light of Ext P7 certificate (Acharya Certificate)," it added. 

The Court thus went on to observe, 

"Ext.P7 (Acharya Certificate) is a collegiate training and as per Rule 2(iv) of Chapter XXXI of KER, the training qualification includes Acharya course of the Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha. Explanation III was inserted as per Ext.P6 amendment to KER on 17.02.2020. Since that Explanation was added on 17.02.2020, the mentioning of the term “equivalent” in Rule 2(1) of Chapter XXXI of KER can be presumed as relaxed", and found the petitioner to possess the requisite qualifications for promotion as Headmistress.

Brief Facts

The petitioner in this case, who had initially been appointed as a High School Assistant (Hindi) (HSA), was promoted as Headmistress against a retirement vacancy which arose in the All Saints High School on April 1st, 2017. This appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer (1st respondent). The petitioner avers that she was promoted as Headmistress, after having completed 13 years of approved graduate service as HSA, and that she also had B.A. and M.A. Degree Certificates in Hindi, as well as a B.Ed. Degree that she had obtained in the year 2013. Apart from these the petitioner also pointed out that she had passed the Account Test (Lower) and the test on Kerala Education Act and Rules conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission in the year 2012, and was the senior most in the combined seniority list of HSA maintained as per Rule 34(a) of Chapter XIV(A) of KER for promotion as Headmistress.

It is the case of the petitioner that despite having the requisite qualifications as prescribed under Chapter XIV(A), Rule 44 and Rule 44A read with the Explanations to sub-rule (1) of Rule 44A of KER, the Additional Director, General Education Department, Thiruvanathapuram cancelled the approval for promotion granted to the petitioner. It was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the graduate service qualification as stipulated under Rule 44A in Chapter XIV(A) of KER.

The Director of General Education (2nd respondent) also refused to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a statutory revision before the State Government(4th respondent), and filed a writ petition against the order of the 2nd respondent. 

It is the case of the petitioner that the said writ petition was finally disposed, directing the disposal of the statutory revision by the 4th respondent. Thereafter, all the parties were heard by the Joint Secretary of the Government, however, the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It is on being aggrieved by the same that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 

Arguments Raised

It was argued by Advocate S. Abdul Razzak on behalf of the petitioner that the order cancelling her appointment had been passed without giving her an opportunity of hearing. It was submitted that the only reason cited for doing so was that the petitioner did not possess the graduate service qualification as stipulated under Rule 44A in Chapter XIV(A) of KER. The petitioner pointed out that as per explanation-I of Rule 44A Chapter of XIV(A) of KER, graduate service referred to “acquisition of collegiate training such as B.T/L.T or B.Ed”. It was thus stated that as per Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of KER, Acharya of Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha with a pass in SSLC examination conducted by the Commissioner of Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent is an academic qualification for the post of HSA, and that the petitioner had been fully qualified for the said post. 

On the other hand, Senior Government Pleader Nisha Bose argued that as per Rule 2(1) of Chapter XXXI of KER, the qualification for the post of Headmaster is a degree in Arts or Science or its equivalent and B.Ed/B.T/L.T or its equivalent as conferred or recognised by the Universities in Kerala, and that no equivalency certificate had been produced by the petitioner to show that her certificate was equivalent to B.Ed/B.T or L.T, and accordingly, she was not qualified. 

Findings of the Court

The Court in this case was at the prima facie opinion that the order cancelling the petitioner's appointment by the the Additional Director, General Education Department, Thiruvanathapuram, would not stand, since it had been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

"Before cancelling a promotion order, it is the bounden duty of the authority concerned to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was promoted as the Headmistress in a school. The post of a Headmistress in a school is a prestigious position in society and in students community. One fine morning the petitioner’s promotion as Headmistress is cancelled by the 2nd respondent even without hearing the petitioner. At least the embarrassment to a teacher in such situation is to be taken note of by the department. Hence the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Ext P11 [order cancelling appointment of petitioner] is not at all acceptable. Therefore, in my opinion, prima facie Ext.P11 will not stand," it was observed.

The Court also wondered how the District Educational Officer, Punalur approved the appointment of the petitioner at the outset, if she did not have 12 years of graduate service as on that date.

The Court perused Rule 44A, as per which it has been stipulated that the minimum service qualification for appointment as Headmaster in an aided complete high schools/training schools shall be 12 years of continuous graduate service with a pass in the test in Kerala Education Act and Kerala Education Rules and a pass in Account Test (lower) conducted by Kerala Public Service Commission, both of which the petitioner had. 

The Court perused Explanation (1) to Rule 44A of Chapter XIV(A) of KER, and observed that service of a teacher as High School Assistant, Training School Assistant, Headmaster ought to be after the acquisition of collegiate training such as B.T, L.T or B.Ed.

Having found the Acharya Examination of Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha as a collegiate training, and the Acharya Certificate as equivalent to B.T, L.T or B.Ed, in light of the term 'such as' in Explanation I to Rule 44A, the Court was of the view that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications. 

"This also proves that after, “acquisition of college training”, only means that the graduate service must be service after obtaining B.T/L.T or B.Ed or similar qualification. In the light of the above dictum also, the petitioner has succeeded," it added. 

The Court further noted that KER was also amended with retrospective effect from October 10, 1988, pursuant to which an explanation was added that the persons who had obtained the Acharya title of the Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha and Siksha Snathak title of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha upto and including the academic year 2014-15 would be considered to have acquired the requisite training qualification.

The Court thus allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to disburse all service benefits admissible for service as Headmistress from April 1, 2017, in light of the appointment and approval orders, and also to disburse the arrears of salary and other benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. 

Case Title: Geethakumary J. v. The District Educational Officer & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 116

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment