LexJENANY J.R. versus S. RAJEEVAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 5 S.C.R. 694 JENANY J.R. V. S. RAJEEVAN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4046 of 2010) MAY 3, 2010 [O.K. JAIN AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ~] Service Law: c Kera/a Education Rules, 1959- Chapter XIV-Ar. 43 Note D 2 - Relevant date for possessing prescribed qualification - Wht#her is the date of occurrence of vacancy or the date on which appointment made - Held: The relevant date would be the date when the vacancy arises. Appellant was appointed to the post of High School Assistant (Hindi) [H.S.A. (Hindi)]. Respondent No. 1 who was already working in the school on the post of Lower Grade Hindi Teacher, did not possess requisite qualification for the post on the date when the vacancy E had arisen. He attained the qualification thereafter Respondent no.1 thereafter challenged the appointment of appellant, which was rejected by the authorities. He filed writ petition challenging the appointment and the orders of the authorities. Single Judge of High Court F dismissed the writ petition. Writ appeal against the same was allowed by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: On the date when the vacancy arose, admittedly, respondent No.1 was not duly qualified to be appointed on the post in question, as contemplated · under Note 2 appended to Rule 43 of Kerala Education Rules, 1959. Note No. 2 is clear, unambiguous and leaves H 694 JENANY J.R. v. S. RAJEEVAN & ORS. 695 no amount of doubt that relevant date would be when the A vacancy occurs. According to the impugned judgment the relevant date would be the date when appellant had actually joined. Division Bench of the High Court has completely misread the said Note No. 2. Giving a true and literal meaning to Note No. 2, the relevant date would be B the date when the vacancy had arisen and not the date when the appellant actually joined the service. [Paras 16, 18 and 19) [699-F-G; 700-B-D] Statute Law by Craies, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4046 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 6.8.2008 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 2425 of 2005. Prashant P., Prachi Bajpai, T. Harish Kumar for the Appellant. C.S. Rajan, A. Raghunath, V.K. Sidharthan, P.V. Dinesh for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Short but important question of law, having great impact c D E is required to be considered by us in this appeal. The question F is with regard to interpretation of Note 2 appended to Rule 43 in Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Rules') framed under Kerala Education Act, 1953. The relevant Note (2), is reproduced herein below: "Note:(2) Promotion under this rule shall be made from persons possessing the prescribed qualifications at the time of occurrence of vacancy." G (Emphasis supplied by us) H A B 696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 5 S.C.R. 3.The question to be considered by us is, which would be the relevant date for possessing prescribed qualification whether at the time of occurrence of vacancy or at the time the appointment is to be made. 4. To decide the aforesaid controversy, factual matrix required to be mentioned is as under: 5. A vacancy to the post of High School Assistant, (in short, H.S.A.) (Hindi) arose o"n 1.7.2003, in the Guhanandapuram School run by Devaswom Committee. On C 10.8.2003, an advertisement for selection of a teacher for the said post was issued by the management. On coming to know about the vacancy, the appellant herein applied for the sa_id post, since according to her, she possessed all the requisite qualifications on the relevant date. She was called for int§!Niew. D She was appointed H.S.A (Hindi) vide appointment order dated 11.9.2003, issued by the Manager of the School. The • appointment order indicated that she was to join duty within 15 days. Since appellant was under medical rest, on account of her recent delivery, she requested the management for grant E of further time to join duty, which was acceded to by the management. F 6. Respondent No.1, S. Rajeevan was already working as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in the said school but had not passed the test which would have enabled him to possess requisite qualification and had applied for re-evaluation. However, he was declared 'pass' on 23.9.2003, which would enable him also to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.