High Court of Kerala
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. GIRI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. GOPINATHAN
Usha Thayyil, Headmistress
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented by Secretary & Others
W.P.(C) Nos.37060 of 2007, 5831 of 2008 & 1809 of 2009
Decided on : 09-09-2009
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Kerala Education Rules 1959 - Rule 44( 1) - Service Matter - Promotion - Vacancy - Eligibility - Whether consent obtained once will apply only to that particular appointment made at the relevant time? Whether on every occasion, when the Manager appoints a junior, overlooking a senior claimant, the consent of the latter has to be obtained - Held, The use of the word whenever has some significance. Concise Oxford English Dictionary gives the meaning of whenever as at whatever time, on whatever occasion, every time that. Going by the plain meaning of the above word, on every occasion, when the Manager appoints a junior, overlooking a senior claimant, the consent of the latter has to be obtained. That is, consent obtained once will only apply to that particular appointment made at the relevant time. As far as that appointment is concerned, the relinquishment is permanent. In other words, the senior cannot retract from the relinquishment and stake claim for appointment, in the very same vacancy. But, when a subsequent vacancy arises, then also the Manager has to get consent of the senior claimant, if it is intended to overlook that claimant. There is no ambiguity in the words used in the Note to R.44 (1) of Chap.XIV-A, K.E.R. Even assuming, there is some ambiguity, an interpretation which is favourable to the teacher should be adopted. The said Note was introduced to protect the interest of teachers. By the above interpretation, the interest of the incumbent who was promoted overlooking the seniority of another claimant and also the interest of latter are protected. There are several provisions which are introduced as a check on the managers and to safeguard the interest of teachers - This is the view taken by this Court while interpreting R.51-A of Chap.XIV-A and R.81-A of Chap.XIV-A of the K.E.R. The Note to R.44 is one such provision - Court approve the legal position laid down in George's case relinquishment given by the 5th respondent, as per Ext.R4(a) in favour of Smt.Akkamma Joseph, will not affect the said respondent's right to claim the vacancy, which arose on the said teacher's resignation from the post of Headmistress - Therefore, the challenge against Ext.P4 - G.O.(Rt) No.5346/07/G.Edn. Dated 23.11.2007 is repelled and accordingly, W.P.(C) No. 37060 of 2007 is dismissed.
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The point that arises for decision in these Writ Petitions is, whether a teacher who has relinquished his/her claim for promotion to the post of Headmaster can stake his/her claim, when another vacancy in that post arises subsequently. The answer to the above question will depend on the construction placed on the Note to Rule 44(1) of the Kerala Education Rules (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rules').
W.P.(C) No.37060 of 2007:
2. The brief facts of the case are the following:
The petitioner, Usha Thayyil, was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant (for short, "UPSA") in the fourth respondent's aided Upper Primary School on 6.7.1989. The fifth respondent, Smt.P.C.Sheeja was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in the said school on 7.7.1989. As per Rule 45B(1) of the Rules, a pass in Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission is an obligatory qualification for promotion as Headmaster of Lower Primary and Upper Primary Schools. As per sub-rule(4) of Rule 45B, those teachers, who attained the age of 50 years, are exempted permanently from acquiring the said test qualification. The existing Headmaster, who was due to retire from service on 30.6.2004, entered on leave from 1.6.2004. So, Smt.Akkamma Joseph, who has continuous service in the school from 1.1.1976, being the senior most hand, was promoted as Headmistress on 1.6.2004. She resigned from the post on 15.10.2004. Before the appointment of Akkamma Joseph, the fifth respondent, who is a graduate teacher, submitted Ext.R4(a) relinquishment letter dated 19.5.2004, relinquishing her claim for the post of Headmistress. Apart from her, three other test qualified/test exempted graduate teachers also submitted their relinquishment. Otherwise, Akkamma Joseph, who was a non-graduate teacher though senior, could not have been appointed as Headmistress, in view of the provisions contained in Rule 45 of the Rules. The said rule provided that a graduate UPSA with five years teaching experience after acquisition of B.Ed. qualification shall be preferred to a non-graduate senior, provided the former has service, which is at least equal to half of the service of the latter.
3. In the resignation vacancy of Smt.Akkamma Joseph, the petitioner was appointed as temporary Headmistress on 18.10.2004. The Assistant Educational Officer, (for short, 'A.E.O.'), by order dated 31.12.2004, declined to grant approval for the promotion of Smt.Akkamma Joseph. The said officer by order dated 5.1.2005, also declined to grant approval for the temporary promotion of the petitioner. The reason for non-approval of promotion of the petitioner was the existence of senior qualified hands. Challenging the said order of the A.E.O, she moved the District Educational Officer (for short, 'D.E.O'.), in appeal. The petitioner had cleared the Account Test (Lower), which was held in January, 2005. Later, after the results were announced, she was promoted as Headmistress on 6.5.2005, by Ext.P1A order. The D.E.O., by order dated 7.6.2005, upheld her temporary promotion and directed the A.E.O. to approve the same. Challenging the said order of the D.E.O. dated 7.6.2005, the 5th respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.24850 of 2005. By judgment dated 31.8.2005 in the said writ petition, this Court set aside the aforementioned order of the D.E.O. and directed the said officer to pass fresh orders on the appeal filed by the 5th respondent. The D.E.O., thereafter, passed Ext.P2 order dated 26.10.2005, rejecting the claim of the 5th respondent and directed the A.E.O. to approve the temporary appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress from 18.10.2004. Challenging Ext.P2 order, the 5th respondent moved the Director of Public Instruction, by filing a revision petition. The said revision petition was dismissed by the Director of Public Instruction, by Ext.P3 order dated 12.9.2006. The 5th respondent moved the Government in revision by challengi
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.