Seniority for promotion in Special Schools is determined by specific rules, prioritizing age when appointment dates are identical, overriding general service rules.

JUDGMENT :

N.NAGARESH, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent in appointing the 7^th respondent as Headmaster in the CSI VHSS for the Deaf, Thiruvalla.

2. The petitioner was appointed as UPSA in the School on 02.06.1997. The petitioner was promoted as HSA on 03.06.2013. The petitioner states that she holds Degrees in MA Malayalam, MA English, B.Sc Physics, B.Ed in Physical Science and a D.Ed in Hearing Impairment. The petitioner has passed the Departmental Tests including the Account Test (Lower), the Kerala Education Act and Rules and the Account Test (Higher).

3. The 7^th respondent was appointed as UPSA on 02.06.1997. The 7^th respondent was promoted as HSA on 01.06.2022.

4. In anticipation of the retirement of the Headmaster, Smt. Susha Susan George on 31.05.2024, the Manager of the School issued Ext. P2 notice dated 20.05.2024. The petitioner and the 7^th respondent submitted applications. The petitioner states that overlooking the superior seniority, claim and merit of the petitioner, the 5^th respondent appointed the 7^th respondent as Headmaster as per Ext.P7 order dated 01.06.2024.

5. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 05.06.2024 before the 4^th respondent-District Educational Officer. When the representation was not considered, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.19662/2024. This Court as per Ext.P8 judgment dated 01.07.2024 directed the 4^th respondent to consider Ext.P8 objection submitted by the petitioner while considering the approval to the appointment of the 7^th respondent. The 4^th respondent, however, rejected the request of the petitioner and issued Ext.P12 order dated 11.09.2024 approving the appointment of the 7^th respondent as Headmaster. Ext.P12 order is under challenge in this writ petition.

6. The petitioner states that her case is analogous to the case of Smt. Susha Susan George, who was appointed as Teacher-in-charge despite having fewer years of service, based on Ext.P6 Government Order. The petitioner, having completed 11 years of service at the High School level, is entitled to the same benefit and should have been considered for promotion.

7. The petitioner submitted that the 4^th respondent wrongly interpreted Rule 37(2) by emphasising age and service seniority. Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIVA of KER clearly states that seniority should be determined by the length of continuous service in the same grade. Only if the date of first appointment and the length of service are identical, the age should be considered. In the present case, the petitioner has more years of service in the grade of HSA than the 7^th respondent. The petitioner is therefore senior to the 7^th respondent.

8. The petitioner further submitted that she has cleared all necessary departmental tests, whereas the 7^th respondent has not passed the requisite test. Rule 44 of the KER mandates that the appointment of Headmaster should ordinarily follow seniority from the seniority list. Ext.P12 order is arbitrary and reflects misuse of discretionary powers.

9. The 4^th respondent-District Educational Officer filed the counter affidavit. The 4^th respondent stated that both the petitioner and the 7^th respondent are equally qualified for the post of Headmaster. Both entered in regular service on same day. In that situation, under Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIVA of the KER, the 7^th respondent is considered as senior on the basis of age, as per Government Order dated 22.11.1979. Ten years of service in teaching the blind and deaf, is the qualification. Both the petitioner and 7^th respondent have same years of experience in service. Therefore, the 7^th respondent was appointed taking into consideration his age.

10. The 4^th respondent further submitted that the argument of the petitioner that the District Educational Officer had approved the appointment of Smt. Susha Susan George as Headmistress considering only her service in the post of HST, is not correct. The said appointment was approved, reckoning her total service.

11. The 5^th respon