P.M. LATHA AND ANR. versus STTE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 653 · Decided: 05-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

P.M. LA THA AND ANR. 
A 
V. 
ST A TE OF KERA LA AND ORS. 
MARCH 5, 2003 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Recruitment to the post of lower primary/upper primary teachers by the 
Public Service Commission-Non-selection of some eligible candidates holding C 
Trained Teachers Certificate due to inclusion of candidates having B.Ed. 
Degree-Challenge to-Single Judge of High Court allowed the petition 
directing Public Service Commission to prepare fresh list excluding B.Ed 
candidates-Division Bench, on consideration of an undertaking by the State 
as to appointment of TTC holder in Lower Primary Schools, TTC and B.Ed. D 
holders in Upper Primary Schools by amending the recruitment rules, upset 
the directions in favour of TTC holder-On appeal, Held: Smee prescribed 
qualifications for primary teachers is TTC, candidates not holding such 
qualification but B.Ed Degree became ineligible and could not be considered 
for selection-Kera/a Education Act, 1958-Kera/a Education Rules. 
Appointment of in-eligible B.Ed degree holders as primary/upper primary 
teachers-Continuance on the principle of equity-Held· Equity and Law should 
be applied and interpreted equitably but equity cannot override settled law--
Hence continuance of such candidate on equity not justified 
E 
Appellant-candidates holding Trained Teacher Certificate. Though they F 
were eligible for appointment as Primary School Teachers they could not be 
selected since Public Service Commission had allowed some ineligible 
candidates also to compete and had selected them for these posts. Single Judge 
of High Court allowed the petitions of appellants directing Service Commission 
to prepare a fresh rank list by excluding other ineligible candidates holding G 
B.Ed. degree. Division Bench of the High Court upheld the decision of the 
Single Judge but on consideration of an undertaking by the State for suitably 
amending the recruitment rules providing avenues of recruitment to B.Ed. 
Degree holders along with TTC holders for the post of Upper Primary 
Teachers, upset the directions made in favour of some eligible candidates. 
1;53 
H 
654 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A Hence the present appeals. 
B 
It was contended for the appellants that when the terms of advertisement 
were very clear and B.Ed. Degree was not the prescribed qualification, such 
candidates were ineligible to compete for selection to the post of IPrimary 
School Teachers. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that B.Ed. is a higher 
qualification than TTC; that appointments of such candidates was made on 
an undertaking by the State Government to amend the recruitment rules to 
include B.Ed. qualification for appointment to some posts of Primary 
Teachers; and that such candidates were allowed to compete along with ITC 
C holders, therefore, appointment of such candidates was valid. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: l.l. There is sufficient logic and justification in the State 
prescribing qualification for the post of primary teachers as only TTC and 
D not B.Ed. Whether B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed for primary 
teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but B.Ed. 
candidates cannot be considered for the present vacancies advertised, as 
eligible. (659-A-B) 
1.2. Equity and Law are twin brothers and law should be applied and 
E interpreted equitably but equity cannot over-ride written or settled law. The 
Division Bench forgot that in extending relief on equity to B.Ed. candidates 
who were unqualified and yet allowed to compete and seek appointments 
contrary to the terms of the advertisement, it is not redressing the injustice 
caused to the appellants, TTC candidates, who would have secured a better 
position in the Rank List to get appointment against the available vacancies, 
F had B.Ed. candidates been excluded from :he selection. The impugned 
judgment of the Division Bench is both illegal, inequitable and patently unjust 
Appellant-TTC candidates have been wrongly deprived of due chance of 
selection and appointment. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench 
deserves to be set aside and of the Single Judge restored. (659-E-GJ 
G 
1.3. The exercise of preparation of a fresh Rank List directed to by the 
Single Judge shall be undertaken and after fresh list is prepared by exclusion 
of B.Ed. candidates, if the appellants get the necessary rank against available 
vacancies at the relevant time,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.