Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, J.
Jayasree P.K. - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Its Secretary, Department Of General Education And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C).No.6006 OF 2021(A)
Decided On : 08-04-2021
Kerala Education Rules – Chapter XXXII, Rule 4 – Appointment – Petitioner is stated to be a qualified Headmistress of 'Chalavara Higher Secondary School', Palakkad, who stakes claim to be appointed as Principal of said School, into a vacancy – However, competent educational Authorities turned down her request saying that, as per ratio mentioned in Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of KER, her chance will come only when 6th turn for appointment to said post arises and that what has arisen on 01.06.2020 is 4th turn. – Petitioner challenged this stand of educational Authority before Government of Kerala, by filing a statutory revision, which has culminated in Ext.P1 order, wherein, afore has been reiterated – She, therefore, challenges Ext.P1 order and prays that 4th respondent-Manager be directed to appoint her to vacancy of Principal, which is now being officiated by 5th respondent as Principal-in-Charge
Finding of the court:
if petitioner's case is accepted, then 4th turn, in post of Principal, will have to go to her; which will, however, then cause subsequent turns to be disturbed, since her appointment would stand contrary to ratio of 2:1 – This is why turns to post of Principal will have to be taken in blocks of three, first two to be filled up by qualified HSSTs; while third by a qualified Headmaster/ Headmistress – Naturally, therefore, when next block of three arises, first two among them will also have to be filled up by qualified HSSTs, while only third can be offered to a qualified Headmaster/Headmistress – Court cannot find any error in Ext.P1 order, since it is indubitable that Government has correctly held that first and second turns in post of Principal ought to be filled up by qualified HSSTs; while third, sixth, ninth turns will have to be filled up by qualified Headmaster/Headmistress – Further, as per statutory Scheme, it is only in absence of a qualified candidate, when ear-marked turn arises, can a person from other category be appointed, which is case presented in this writ petition, because third turn -which should have normally gone to petitioner -had to be filled up through an HSST, since she was not, concededly, qualified in year 2015, when said turn arose – Court cannot find favour with submissions of petitioner against Ext.P1 –
Result : Writ Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules (KER for short) stipulates the method of appointment to the post of Principal in a Higher Secondary School, in Rule 4 thereof. As per this Rule, the post of Principal in Higher Secondary Schools is to be filled either by promotion from among qualified Higher Secondary School Teachers (HSST) or by transfer from among qualified Headmasters of High Schools, under the respective educational agency. The Rule, thereafter, postulates that the post will be filled up from among the afore two categories in the ratio of 2:1 and that if qualified candidates are not available for appointment to a vacancy by any of such methods, such vacancy shall be filled up by other method.
2. The afore provision has been attracted in this case because, the petitioner is stated to be a qualified Headmistress of the 'Chalavara Higher Secondary School', Palakkad, who stakes claim to be appointed as the Principal of the said School, into a vacancy that arose on 01.06.2020. However, the competent educational Authorities turned down her request saying that, as per the ratio mentioned in Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the KER, her chance will come only when the 6th turn for appointment to the said post arises and that what has arisen on 01.06.2020 is the 4th turn.
3. The petitioner challenged this stand of the educational Authority before the Government of Kerala, by filing a statutory revision, which has culminated in Ext.P1 order dated 01.03.2021, wherein, the afore has been reiterated. She, therefore, challenges Ext.P1 order and prays that 4th respondent-Manager be directed to appoint her to the vacancy of Principal, which is now being officiated by the 5th respondent as the Principal-in-Charge.
4. I have heard Sri.P.Jayaram – learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.V.A.Muhammed – learned counsel for the Manager of the school and Sri.P.M.Manoj – learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.
5. The facts which are undisputed would show that when the 1st turn in the post of Principal arose in the school, it was filled up by a qualified Higher Secondary School Teacher, as was also the 2nd turn. The 3rd turn in the post, however, arose at a time when the petitioner -who was then working as a Headmistress -was not qualified. This vacancy was, therefore, also filled up by appointing a qualified Higher Secondary School Teacher, who subsequently retired on 31.05.2020, thus causing a vacancy to arise with effect from 01.06.2020. It is this turn which is now being claimed by the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.P.Jayaram, argued that, going by Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the KER, the turn/vacancy in the post of Principal of a Higher Secondary School can be filled up only in the ratio of 2:1 from among HSSTs and Headmasters/Headmistresses and therefore, that when his client missed a turn to be appointed as a Principal -on account of being not qualified when the 3rd turn arose in the year 2015 -she should be accommodated to the 4th turn, which arose on 01.06.2020. He predicated that this is the only manner in which the mandate of the afore legal provisions can be harmonised because, according to him, otherwise, his client would never obtain an opportunity to be the Principal, unless the 6th turn arises, which is not possible because she is to retire on 31.05.2021.
7. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader -Shri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the KER does not concede to any ambiguity or doubt and that every time a vacancy arises in the post of Principal, it will have to be filled up in the ratio of 2:1 between qualified HSSTs and Headmaster/ Headmistress of the High School. He submitted that, as is admitted in this case, when the first and second turns arose in the post of Principal in the School in question, qualified HSSTs were appointed; but that when the third turn arose, the petitioner -who would have been normally appointed to the sam
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
