Back
2011 Supreme(Ker) 1168
High Court of Kerala
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.
Thomas K L - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala & Ors - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 13196 of 2010
Decided On : 13-12-2011
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Kerala Education Rules, specifically Rule 4 and 6 of Chapter XXXII, in the appointment of a Principal in a Higher Secondary School. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with the rules and the fairness of the selection process.
Headnote:
Appointment - Principal in a Higher Secondary School - Kerala Education Rules - Rule 4 and 6 of Chapter XXXII - The court considered the method of appointment and qualifications prescribed in the Kerala Education Rules relevant to the appointment of Principal in a Higher Secondary School. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Principal include a Masters Degree with not less than 50% marks, B.Ed degree, and minimum approved teaching experience of 12 years at Higher Secondary level under the same educational agency. The court analyzed the qualifications of the candidates and the method of appointment as per the rules, and the interpretation of the rules influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the appointment of a Principal in a Higher Secondary School. The petitioner, a Higher Secondary School Teacher, challenged the appointment of the 6th respondent, who was appointed as Principal, alleging that the 6th respondent did not meet the qualifications for the post and that the appointment process was unfair. The court considered the eligibility and selection process, as well as the interpretation of relevant rules and government orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the 6th respondent as Principal was made in accordance with the Kerala Education Rules, specifically Rule 4 which prescribes the method of appointment by promotion from Higher Secondary School Teachers or by transfer from qualified Headmasters of High Schools. The court also found that the appointment process, including the inclusion of Headmasters in the interview, was in compliance with the rules and the ratio of 2:1 among the two streams.
Issues: The main issues considered by the court were whether the 6th respondent was qualified for the appointment as Principal and whether the appointment process was fair and reasonable. The court analyzed the qualifications of the candidates, the method of appointment, and the fairness of the selection process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment of the 6th respondent as Principal was in accordance with the Kerala Education Rules, specifically Rule 4 which prescribed the method of appointment. The court also emphasized that the inclusion of Headmasters in the interview process was justified to comply with the ratio of 2:1 among the two streams as per the rules.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the challenge against the appointment of the 6th respondent as Principal and directed the reconsideration of the approval of the 6th respondent's appointment, with the creation of supernumerary posts of Higher Secondary School Teachers (Jr.) to retain the junior most among the Higher Secondary School Teachers (Jr.) in the subject of English under the 5th respondent management.
C.K.Abdul Rehim, J.
1. Since the subject matter involved in both the writ petitions are common, relating to appointment of Principal in a Higher Secondary School, both the cases were considered together and disposed through common judgment. The 6th respondent in WP(C) No.13196/2010, who was appointed as Principal, is the petitioner in WP(C) No.24638/2010. The petitioner in WP(C).No. 13196/2010 is a rival claimant, who is challenging the appointment. Reference of the parties and exhibits are made as in the order in WP(C).13196/2010.
2. The petitioner as well as respondents 6 to 9 were teachers working in different schools under the 5th respondent management. The petitioner is working as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Malayalam) in the Marthoma Higher Secondary School, Pathanamthitta. Ext.P1 order of appointment of the petitioner as HSST was approved by the second respondent as per Ext.P2. When a vacancy of Principal arose, applications were invited from qualified Higher Secondary School Teachers, vide Ext.P4 letter issued by the 5th respondent. Last date for receipt of application stipulated therein was 20.1.2010, before 5 p.m. According to the petitioner, he was eligible for appointment and submitted application within the time stipulated. Eventhough an interview was scheduled on 9.2.2010, the 5th respondent had postponed the same. Initially, only 4 persons including the petitioner were invited for the interview. But the 6th respondent, who was not an applicant, was invited for interview conducted subsequently, and she was appointed overlooking claim of the petitioner.
3. Contention of the petitioner is that, the 6th respondent was not a Higher Secondary School Teacher, but only a Headmaster of a High School under the same management. By virtue of Ext.P4 notification applications were invited only from Higher Secondary School Teachers. From Ext.P6 information furnished by the 5th respondent it is clear that, only 4 persons applied for the post and the 6th respondent was not an applicant. But the management considered 6 persons, 4 candidates of HSST and 2 candidates of Headmasters and the 6th respondent was selected. In Ext.P6 it is stated that, appointment of the 6th respondent is made in the light of GO(P) No.93/09/GIE .Edn. dt 27.3.2009(Ext.P3). On coming to know about the steps for appointment of the 6th respondent, the petitioner submitted Exts.P8 and P9. The 4th respondent had rejected approval of the appointment of 6th respondent, through Ext.P10 stating the reason that, the 6th respondent is qualified for teaching in the subject of English and as per the staff fixation order there are 2 posts of HSST and one post of HSST (Junior) in English which remains already filled up. Hence there is no enough periods available for teaching, if the 6th respondent is posted as Principal, as required in the Government order dated 6.11.2006. The 6th respondent is challenging the rejection of approval of her appointment in WP(C) 24638/10. (Ext.P10 proceedings is produced as Ext.P4 in WP(C).No.24638/2010) .
4. The method of appointment and qualification prescribed in Rule 4 and 6 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules is relevant in the context. The method of appointment of Principal is (i) by promotion from the category of Higher Secondary School Teachers under the respective educational agencies and (ii) by transfer from qualified Headmasters of aided schools under the respective educational agencies. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Principal are (i) Masters Degree with not less than 50% marks from any universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any of the Universities in Kerala (ii) B.Ed degree from any of the Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by any of the Universities in Kerala, (iii) Minimum approved teaching experience of 12 years at Higher Secondary level under the same educational agency. According to the petitioner, he b
