Constitution of India - Article 30 - Kerala Education Act - Section 2 – Kerala Education Rules - Rule 44 – Manager of the minority institutions need not obtain relinquishment from the senior teacher to promote a junior teacher – When the vacancy of Headmistress arose in Christian Minority Institution, petitioner was unqualified – later fifth respondent was appointed and as on that date, she was fully qualified and she was promoted – Petitioner contented that, being the senior most, the petitioner should have been temporarily promoted and that, on her becoming qualified by completing 12 years of service, she should have been regularly appointed as the Headmistress - this Court has already held that the fifth respondent was ineligible to be considered – though sixth respondent was qualified, she relinquished her right – according to petitioner, sixth respondent’s relinquishment operates till last - Court held - right of minority communities to choose a person, whom they consider fit to be appointed as Headmaster has been recognised by the Apex Court - Since minority institutions have the freedom to make appointment irrespective of the seniority of the teachers, a senior teacher in a minority school cannot claim any enforceable right to be appointed as Headmaster - In the absence of such a right, there is no necessity for the Manager to obtain relinquishment from the senior teacher to fill up the post of Headmaster by appointing a junior qualified teacher - the relinquishment was unnecessary and inoperative and cannot stand in the way of the Manager appointing the sixth respondent as Headmistress, if she accepts the same nor can the petitioner prevent the sixth respondent from accepting the post of Headmistress in the school.

(Paras 19, 22, 24, 31 and 33)

Cases Referred:

Rev.K.C.Seth v. State of Kerala (1991 (2) KLT 662).

Padmanabhan Nair v. Dy.Director (1991 (1) KLT 337).

Manager, St.Thomas U.P.S. v. Commissioner (2002 (2) SCC 497).

Annie Francis v. D.E.O, Aluva (2005 (3) KLT 238).

Secy.Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T.Jose {(2007) 1 SCC 368)}.

Ammad v. Emjay High School (1998 (2) KLT 828).

Comparative Citation: 2008 (4) KLT 926

Judgment :

In this writ petition, the controversy is regarding the filling up of the post of Headmistress of an aided High School, of which the 4th respondent is the Manager. Petitioner commenced continuous service as HSA in the aforesaid school w.e.f. 15/7/89 and was test qualified in December, 2001. Petitioner completed 12 years graduate service on 15/7/2001. In so far as the 5th respondent is concerned, her continuous service in the school as HSA commenced on 7/6/93 and she got the test qualifications in June, 2000 and completed 12 years graduate service on 7/6/2005. As far as the 6th respondent is concerned, even according to the petitioner, she is senior to both the petitioner and the 5th respondent and was also qualified for the post in all respects. Therefore, details regarding her service particulars are not necessary.

2. There arose the vacancy of Headmistress in the school w.e.f. 01.04.2001. At that time, both the petitioner and the 5th respondent were unqualified. Petitioner submits that despite her eligibility and seniority, the 5th respondent was posted as Teacher in charge and that subsequently, she was promoted on a regular basis w.e.f. 7/6/2005. The appointment of the 5th respondent as Headmistress was approved by the DEO and in appeal to the DPI, by Ext.P5 order, the 5th respondents promotion was set aside on the ground that the school did not have minority status and that the petitioner was the rightful claimant. In the revision filed by the Manager before the 1st respondent, Ext.P6 order was rendered taking the view that the school is a minority educational institution and on that basis, the promotion of the 5th respondent was also upheld. Petitioner sought review of Ext.P6 and that was rejected by Ext.P7. The aforesaid orders were challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.3