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

2025 Supreme(Ker) 873

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
P.M. Sreenath, S/o. P.S. Mani – Petitioner
Versus 
State Of Kerala, Represented By Secretary To Government, General Education Department and Ors. – Respondents 
W.P(C) Nos.3158 of 2023 and 27326 of 2023
Decided On : 10-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. GEORGE ABRAHAM JOBY D JOSEPH SWATHY A.P.
For the Respondent: BY ADVS. SRI.T.JAYAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SAJJAD M P. GOPAL V.A.MUHAMMED(K/124/1984)

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that seniority and qualifications under KER are essential for the appointment of a headmaster, and temporary promotions must yield to qualified candidates.

Headnote:

(A) Kerala Education Rules (KER) - Rules 34, 37, 44, 45A, 45B, and 45C - Appointment of headmaster - The court held that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion as headmaster based on seniority and qualifications, while the temporary appointment of the rival party was not sustainable. (Paras 8 - 12 )

(B) Qualifications for Headmaster - The court emphasized that the qualifications under KER must be met for appointment, and temporary promotions must be reverted when a qualified candidate becomes available. (Paras 10 - 11 )

Facts of the case:

The writ petitions were filed by rival teachers contesting the appointment of a headmaster in a school. The petitioner claimed entitlement based on seniority and qualifications, while the rival party argued for the validity of her temporary appointment.

Findings of Court:

The court found that the petitioner was qualified and entitled to be appointed as headmaster, while the rival party lacked the necessary qualifications.

Issues: The main issues were the qualifications required for the headmaster position and the validity of the rival party's temporary appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner,s qualifications and seniority entitled him to the headmaster position, and the rival party,s temporary appointment was invalid due to lack of qualifications.

Result: W.P

(C) No.3158 of 2023 is allowed; Smt.C.Anitha is reverted to LPSA, and the petitioner is promoted as headmaster.

JUDGMENT :

[W.P(C) Nos.3158 of 2023 and 27326 of 2023]

These writ petitions are filed by rival teachers seeking appointment to the post of headmaster in the school managed by the 6th respondent in W.P(C) No.3158 of 2023.

2. W.P(C) No.3158 of 2023 is filed by one P.M.Sreenath contending that he was appointed as LPSA from 01.12.2008 in a leave vacancy and that he was appointed to a permanent vacancy with effect from 01.06.2009. During 2016-17, the petitioner contends, that on account of the reduction of student strength, he was deployed to a Government school where he is still continuing. The headmistress of the school one Smt.Vijayalskhmi is stated to have retired with effect from 31.07.2003, and another Arabic teacher was placed “in charge” for some time. Later as per Ext.P3, the Manager of the school appointed the 5th respondent- Smt.C.Anitha as “headmistress in charge”. He contends that the petitioner obtained 12 years of teaching experience as on 01.06.2021, having passed the Account Test (Lower) during July, 2019 and the Kerala Education Rules (KER) test during November, 2018 and hence became entitled for appointment to the post of headmaster as was claimed before the Manger as seen from Ext.P6. The petitioner relies on Ext.P7 information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to contend that the appointment of Smt.C.Anitha was only as “in charge” and further that the scale of pay is also extended as that of the headmistress as evidenced by Ext.P8 issued by the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO). The claim made by the petitioner as above was considered by the Government as seen from Ext.P12 seeking to deny the claim made, essentially on account of the alleged lack of provisions under KER to discharge Smt.C.Anitha, who was continuing as above, and since the petitioner was not in the rolls of the school managed by the 6th respondent, on account of which, his seniority could not be taken into account. It is challenging Ext.P12 issued as above by the Government that P.M.Sreenath filed W.P(C) No.3158 of 2023.

3. On the other hand, Smt.C.Anitha filed W.P(C) No.27326 of 2023 seeking a declaration that her appointment as headmistress, noticed above, was validly made.

4. For ease of reference, the parties are referred to with reference to their names in this judgment.

5. I have heard Sri. Dr. George Abraham learned counsel for Sri.P.M.Sreenath, Sri. V.A.Muhammed, the learned counsel for Smt.C.Anitha, Sri.P.Gopal, the learned counsel for the Manager and Sri.T.Jayan, the learned Government Pleader.

6. Dr. George, the learned counsel for Sreenath, would invite the attention of this Court to various provisions of KER and the Right to Information Act, 2005, to contend that as on 01.06.2021, the petitioner was the sole qualified person who could be appointed as headmaster. He would contend that Smt.C.Anitha was not having the required qualifications, and she became entitled for the exemption from the qualification upon attaining 50 years of age only in March, 2024. Per contra Sri.V.A.Muhammed would contend that his client, Smt.C.Anitha, was entitled to the appointment as headmistress with reference to Rule 45A of KER.

7. I have considered the rival contentions as well as the connected records.

8. Chapter XIVA of KER provides for the conditions of service of aided school teachers. Rule 44 of KER provides for the appointment of headmasters ordinarily according to the seniority list prepared and maintained according to the provision of Rule 34. Rule 34, on the other hand, provides for a combined seniority list for the teachers specifically for the purpose of determining the position of the persons eligible for promotion as primary school headmasters “by virtue of the length of service and prescribed qualification”. With reference to the afore, the provisions of Rule 37 provide as under:-

“37. (1) Seniority of a teacher in any grade in any unit shall be decided with reference to the length of continuous service in that grade in that unit p

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