2003 (3) TMI 766 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of B.Ed. candidates for the post of lower primary/upper primary teachers.
2. Validity of the rank list and appointments made by the Public Service Commission (PSC).
3. Interpretation of recruitment rules and qualifications prescribed in the advertisement.
4. Equitable relief and interim orders during the pendency of appeals.

Summary:

1. Eligibility of B.Ed. Candidates:
The appellants, candidates seeking recruitment to the post of lower primary/upper primary teachers in Kerala, challenged their non-selection due to the inclusion of B.Ed. candidates in the select list. The advertisement specified that only candidates with Teachers Training Certificate (TTC) were eligible. The Single Judge of the Kerala High Court ruled that B.Ed. candidates were not eligible under the advertisement terms and directed the PSC to exclude them from the rank list and cancel their appointments.

2. Validity of the Rank List and Appointments:
The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision that B.Ed. candidates were ineligible but allowed their appointments based on an undertaking by the State to amend the recruitment rules. The Division Bench directed the government to frame rules to include B.Ed. holders for future appointments and validated the existing appointments of B.Ed. candidates.

3. Interpretation of Recruitment Rules and Qualifications:
The Supreme Court noted that the advertisement clearly prescribed TTC as the qualification for the post, and B.Ed. candidates were ineligible. The Court emphasized that TTC is a specialized qualification for teaching primary classes, whereas B.Ed. is for higher classes. The Court found no justification for the Division Bench to rely on rules applicable to private schools and judgments related to them.

4. Equitable Relief and Interim Orders:
The Supreme Court held that equity cannot override written law. The Division Bench's decision to validate B.Ed. appointments was inequitable to TTC candidates who were deprived of their rightful chance. The Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment and restored the Single Judge's order. The Court directed the preparation of a fresh rank list excluding B.Ed. candidates and ordered appointments for TTC candidates based on the revised list. The interim orders allowed B.Ed. candidates' appointments provisionally, but the final judgment favored the TTC candidates.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Division Bench's judgment, and restored the Single Judge's order with modifications. The PSC was directed to prepare a fresh rank list excluding B.Ed. candidates and appoint TTC candidates accordingly. The appellants were awarded costs from the State of Kerala.