SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Ker) 635

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
Benny Luckose S/o Luckose – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 8593 of 2021, 22466 of 2020
Decided On : 27-07-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Paulson Thomas.
For the Respondent: Sri. P.M. Manoj.

Point of Law: When one examines Chapter XXXII of the KER, it is without doubt that when there are no other candidates available, a LPST/UPST is certainly entitled to be appointed to the post of HSST (Jr)/HSST

Headnote:

Kerala Education Rules- Lower Primary School Teacher- petitioner asserts that his appointment was on the basis of the recommendation made by the statutory Selection Committee and that it was approved by the 3rd respondent-Regional Director- proposal for approval of his appointment as the Principal- Chapter XXXII of the KER does not say that Headmaster of the Upper Primary Section cannot be appointed as a HSST.- competent Authority be directed to approve his appointment as Principal forthwith.

Finding of the Court:

petitioner was working as a UPST, but he was then occupying the post of Headmaster of the said Section- Court do not see from Chapter XXXII of the KER any distinction having been made between the Headmaster of the Upper Primary Section and a UPST and even on a close scan of all the provisions of the said Chapter, no separate classification has been made between the aforementioned two category of teachers. Normally, the senior most among the UPST will become the Headmaster of the Upper Primary Section and I cannot see how a person can be said to have lost his claim as a UPST merely because he becomes the Headmaster, based on seniority. This certainly would create an absurd situation where merely on account of a person being promoted as the Headmaster, he loses his chance to be appointed ‘by transfer’ to the post of HSST. There can be no doubt that this proposition cannot find favour in law because, going by Rule 43 Chapter XIVA of the KER, petitioner certainly would have obtained the right to be promoted as a High School Teacher, had such a vacancy arisen in the High School Section.

Result: Petition dispose od

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner in these two Writ Petitions is the same, who seeks connected reliefs and consequently, I propose to dispose them jointly through this judgment.

2. The petitioner is stated to have retired as the Principal of St. Joseph's Higher Secondary School, Pullurampara, Kozhikode - which is under the management of the 4th respondent - with effect from 31.03.2020. It is submitted that he commenced continuous service under the 4th respondent-Management as a Lower Primary School Teacher (LPST) on 27.09.1984 and that he was appointed as Headmaster of the Upper Primary School Section under the same management with effect from 16.05.2003. He adds that Higher Secondary Section was sanctioned in the school in the academic year 2010-11 and consequent thereto, he was appointed ‘by transfer’ as a Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) [HSST (Jr)] in Political Science with effect from 28.11.2011.

3. The petitioner asserts that his appointment was on the basis of the recommendation made by the statutory Selection Committee and that it was approved by the 3rd respondent-Regional Director. He, however, concedes that, initially, the Regional Director had raised an objection against ‘by transfer’ appointment as an HSST (Jr) saying that, under Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules (KER for short), only an Upper Primary School Teacher (UPST) could have been so appointed; but that approval was thereafter granted based on the explanation of the Manager, contained in Ext.P5, that petitioner is retaining a lien as a UPST in the school.

4. The petitioner says that pursuant thereto, later, he was granted the charge of Principal and that in 2017, through Ext.P10 order, he was promoted substantively as the Principal. He says that, however, when the proposal for approval of his appointment as the Principal was taken before the Regional Director, Ext.P11 order was issued, rejecting the same, for the reason that his initial appointment as HSST (Jr) in the year 2012 made through Ext.P4, was irregular, again holding that no Headmaster of an Upper Primary Section could have been appointed as HSST (Jr).

5. The petitioner asserts that the afore stand in Ext.P11 is wholly irregular and improper, since his appointment as an HSST (Jr) had already been approved through Ext.P7 and further because Chapter XXXII of the KER does not say that Headmaster of the Upper Primary Section cannot be appointed as a HSST. He, therefore, prays that Ext.P11 and the consequent Ext.P14 order of the Government confirming it, be set aside and that the competent Authority be directed to approve his appointment as Principal forthwith.

6. I notice that petitioner had initially filed W.P. (C) No. 22466/2020 stating that he is the Principal and that while so, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2020 constraining him to, therefore, file W.P. (C) No. 8593/2021, seeking that his retiral benefits be disbursed at the earliest.

7. I have heard Sri. Paulson Thomas - learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.M. Manoj learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents.

8. Sri. P.M. Manoj commenced his arguments in support of Exts.P11 and P14 in W.P. (C) No. 22466/2020, submitting that unless the petitioner is legally entitled to be appointed as an HSST (Jr), his appointment as the Principal of the Higher Secondary Section cannot be accorded by the Regional Director. He submitted that, going by Chapter XXXII of the KER, only a UPST could have been appointed as an HSST (Jr) and that since the petitioner was occupying the post of Headmaster of the Upper Primary Section, he could not have staked claim for such appointment. He submitted that, in spite of this, the Manager appears to have appointed the petitioner and it granted approval by the Regional Director through Ext.P7 in error. He argued that, therefore, said authority was justified in having cancelled Ext.P7, through Ext.P11 and for the

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top