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) 998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
Venugopalan H., S/o.K. Haridas - Appellant 
Versus 
The District Educational Officer - Respondents 
WP(C) No.34092 of 2019
Decided on : 27-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADV K.A.MOHAMED HARIS
For the Respondent: BY SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.O.A.NURIYA SRI.R.PRADEEP KUMAR

IMPORTANT POINT
Amendments to qualifications for Head-teachers cannot have retrospective effect as they violate vested rights under existing rules.

Headnote:

(A) Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Section 38 - Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 - Rule 18(1) - Appointment of Head-teachers - Writ petitions challenge the retrospective application of exemptions from qualifications for Head-teachers for those over 50 years, as introduced by G.O.(P)No.19/2020 and G.O.(P)No.1/2021 - The court found that the amendments to the rules do not allow for appointments in violation of existing qualifications and established that vested rights cannot be divested retrospectively. (Paras 4 , 30 , 32 )

(B) Legal principles - The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to qualifications as per Rule 18(1) and clarified that the exemptions for teachers over 50 years do not override mandatory qualifications. (Paras 26 , 32 )

(C) Issues - Whether the amendments to Rule 18(1) are ultra vires the Central Act and if the retrospective application of the rules violates the vested rights of teachers. (Paras 8 , 30 )

Findings of Court:

The amendments to the Kerala Rules only have prospective application and cannot divest existing rights of teachers seeking appointments. (Paras 30 , 32 )

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the qualifications prescribed under Rule 18(1) must be followed and that retrospective amendments affecting vested rights are impermissible. (Paras 30 , 32 )

Result: Writ petitions disposed of, declaring the amendments to have only prospective effect.

JUDGMENT :

These writ petitions pertain to the appointment of Head- teachers in the Upper Primary/Lower Primary Schools with specific reference to Rule 18(1) of the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011.

2. The conditions of service of aided school teachers were prescribed under Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KER’). Rule 45B provided for the obligatory qualifications for teachers seeking promotion as Headmasters of LP/UP Schools. Sub-rule (1) thereto provided that an Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission shall be an obligatory qualification. Sub-rule (2) provided exemption from the requirement for the qualification under sub-rule (1) as against those who were holding the post of Headmaster in the LP/UP Schools as on the date of introduction of Rule 45B and sub-rule (3) extended a temporary exemption to those teachers awaiting promotion as Headmasters from the requirement of sub-rule (1) till 31.03.1988. At the same time, sub-rule (4) extended a complete exemption from the rigor of sub-rule (1) for those teachers who have attained the age of 50 years.

3. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, (hereinafter referred to as the ’Central Act’) was introduced by the parliament to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6-14 years. The Central Government framed the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Central Rules’) in exercise of the rule-making power under Section 38 of Central Act. The State Government, too, came out with the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Kerala Rules’) under Section 38 of the Act. Rule 18 of the Kerala Rules originally provided as under:-

18. Duties to be performed by Head-teacher and Teachers.- (1) The Head-teacher shall be a person having a minimum of twelve years of teaching experience and possessing pass in such departmental tests and test on Kerala Education Act and Rules as may be specified in that regard:

Provided that teachers in service shall be given time up to three years to pass the above tests.”

Thus, under the provisions of Rule 18, the Head-teacher was to be a person with a minimum of 12 years of teaching experience and a pass in such departmental tests and test on the Kerala Education Act and Rules, as specified. The proviso to Rule 18(1) extended a period of three years to those teachers who were in service, to pass the above test.

4. A Division Bench of this Court in Thomas v. Joint Secretary, General Education Department [2020 (1) KLT 840] was called upon to consider the question as to whether the test qualifications under Rule 18(1) of the Kerala Rules are mandatory as regards the teachers who have attained the age of 50 years. It was contended before this Court by the teachers who had obtained the qualifications, that there can be no appointment as Head-teachers without the qualifications as specified. Teachers who have already attained the age of 50 years and who are disabled on account of the non-acquisition of the test qualification, relied on the proviso to Rule 18(1) to contend that they have a window of three years for acquiring the qualification. The Division Bench of this Court found that the proviso cannot be found as having exempted such qualifications for a period of three years or permitted appointment of unqualified teachers as Head-teachers, subject to qualification being obtained within three years. The Division Bench of this Court considering the afore situation, held that since the proviso extends three years for acquisition of required qualification for those who have attained 50 years of age, the same has to be given due effect, that there can be no appointment/promotions of persons who are not qualified in accordance with Rules, that the unqualified senior teacher would be entitled

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