Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
Saji Thomas, Principal-in-Charge Nirmala Higher Secondary School – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 6735 of 2011, 5842 of 2012, 5731 of 2014
Decided On : 30-09-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 30(1) - Kerala Education Rules - Rule 6 (1) (3) of Chapter XXXII - National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 - Section 2 (g), 11(f) - Appointment to post of Principal - Declaration of minority right - Whether the school is established and administered by minority - Whether based on religion or language, shall have right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice - Article 30(1) of Constitution of India provides that all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
Findings of the Court:
Petitioner is senior to 3rd respondent and became qualified to post of Principal as per clause 6 (1) (3) of Chapter XXXII of KER read with Note 1 thereto, since the school is a minority educational institution, manager has availed rights under Article 30 (1) of Constitution and appointed the 3rd respondent who became qualified for post of Principal with effect from 02.07.2012. In circumstances, Court find no reason to interfere with order of appointment of 3rd respondent as Principal and Ext.P20 order passed by the Government.
Result: W.P. disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
1. Since common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, unless otherwise specifically indicated, the status of the parties as well as the exhibits referred to herein-below shall be as obtaining in W.P. (C) No. 5731/2014.
2. The Government, as per Ext.P2 order dated 15.02.1982, accorded sanction for opening new private schools in the State for the academic year 1982-1983. Permission was accordingly granted to open a new school in the aided sector in Malappuram District by name Nirmala Higher Secondary School, Erumamunda (hereinafter referred to as ‘school’ for brevity) pursuant to an application made by the Vicar, St. Mary's Catholic Church, Erumamunda.
3. Sri. Saji Thomas, the petitioner in all these writ petitions, was appointed as High School Assistant by the 2nd respondent, the manager of the school, with effect from 15.07.1994. When Higher Secondary section was sanctioned to the school, the petitioner was appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) with effect from 24.08.1998 and the appointment was approved by the Director of Higher Secondary Education vide Ext.P1.
4. Consequent to the retirement of Sri. C.P. Thomas, the Principal of the school on 31.03.2010, a vacancy to the post of Principal arose with effect from 01.04.2010. The petitioner states that, as per Rule 6 (1) (3) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules (for short ‘KER’) reckoning his service as HSA and HSST, he became qualified for being appointed as Principal in the school on 15.07.2006. In the seniority list published in the web portal of the Department of Higher Secondary Education relating to the school, Smt. Solly Augustine is placed as rank No. 1, the petitioner is placed as rank No. 2 and Sri. Sunny. M.P. (the 3rd respondent in W.P. (C) Nos. 5842 of 2012 and 5731 of 2014) as rank No. 8. Smt. Solly Augustine submitted her relinquishment for appointment as Principal of the school as per Ext.P5 letter dated 03.04.2010. In view of the relinquishment given by Smt. Solly Augustine, the petitioner, being the next senior-most teacher, submitted Ext.P6 application dated 30.03.2010 before the Manager requesting to appoint him as Principal of the school.
5. The manager appointed the 3rd respondent as the Principal of the school as per Ext.P7 order dated 01.04.2010. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is not qualified to be appointed as Principal of the school. The 3rd respondent was appointed as HSST (Junior) in the school from 24.08.1998 to 14.07.1999 and as HSST (Senior) from 15.07.2006 and he acquired the requisite 12 years teaching experience as per Rule 6 (1) (3) of Chapter XXXII of KER under the same educational agency only on 24.08.2010. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.P8 representation before the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education, the 1st respondent, contending that the 3rd respondent was not qualified to be appointed as Principal of the school as he did not possess 12 years teaching experience in the same educational agency mandatory for appointment as Principal of Higher Secondary School and that the appointment is made overlooking the seniority of six teachers.
6. The Regional Deputy Director, as per Ext.P9 order dated 17.04.2010, returned the proposal for approval of appointment of the 3rd respondent as Principal with a further direction to appoint the senior-most teacher as HSST in charge of Principal and to submit the proposal for approval of appointment for the purpose of drawing and disbursing the salary of the staff and for performing the routine duties of Principal. The petitioner states that since the manager did not comply with the direction in Ext.P9, the Regional Deputy Director issued Ext.P10 order placing the petitioner as HSST in charge of the post of Principal on a provisional basis for the purpose of drawing and disbursing the salary of t
Minority institutions have the constitutional right to appoint principals without state interference, recognizing their entitlement under Article 30 of the Constitution.
Linguistic Minority Institutions are entitled to administer appointments autonomously under Article 30 of the Constitution, and the designation must be upheld in light of administrative integrity and....
Rule 44 reads as appointment of Headmasters shall ordinarily be according to seniority from the seniority list prepared.
The eligibility criteria for appointment as an Officiating/Incharge Principal of an Intermediate College recognized and governed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the right of a religious minority to administer an educational institution of its choice, including the appointment of a Headmaster, is of....
Appointments obtained through forged documents are void ab initio, and failure to comply with verification processes undermines claims to employment despite long service, reaffirming minority institu....
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
