The court affirmed teachers over 50 years are exempt from qualification tests, ruling the denial of a qualified candidate's appointment as Headmaster was illegal and mandated payment of owed salary arrears.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

Respondents 4 and 6 in W.P.(C)No.16983 of 2017 have filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958 challenging the judgment dated 10.01.2025 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which was one filed by the 1^st respondent herein-petitioner, who retired from service on 31.05.2016, on attaining the age of superannuation, while working as HSA (Maths) in Parudur Higher Secondary School managed by the 1^st appellant. In the said writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that she is entitled for arrears of salary based on her eligibility found by the 4^th respondent State in Ext.P8 order dated 30.03.2017 to the post of Headmaster, Parudur Higher Secondary School, by modifying Ext.P8 order to that extent; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 4^th respondent State and the 6^th respondent Accountant General (A&E), Kerala to sanction and pay the petitioner arrears of salary from 01.04.2015 till the date of retirement, in the post of Headmaster, Parudur Higher Secondary School, by holding that she had worked as such for the said period, and order recovery of the excess amount paid by the State to the 6^th respondent (2^nd appellant herein) from respondents 2 to 4 and 6 in the writ petition.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, while the petitioner was working as HSA (Maths), there arose a vacancy of Headmaster in Parudur Higher Secondary School, with effect from 01.04.2015, consequent to the retirement of the Headmaster Sri.P.M. Aryan on 31.03.2015. Though, as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy, the petitioner, who entered service as HSA (Maths) on 25.06.1984, was fully qualified for the post of Headmaster, under the provisions of Kerala Education Rules (KER), the 4^th respondent Manager (1^st appellant herein), appointed the 6^th respondent (2^nd appellant herein) as Headmaster of the School, ignoring the eligibility and experience of the petitioner and other senior qualified teachers. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 representation dated 31.03.2015 before the Manager and Ext.P2 representation dated 31.03.2015 before the District Educational Officer, Ottapalam. The District Educational Officer, vide Ext.P3 order dated 30.04.2015, informed the petitioner that her claim cannot be considered since she has not acquired the test qualification under Rule 18(1) of the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules , 2011, and no exemption is provided to aided school teachers who have attained the age of 50 years. The petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal dated 02.06.2015 before the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad, which was dismissed by Ext.P5 order dated 29.09.2015. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 revision petition dated 14.11.2015 before the State. By Ext.P7 judgment dated 31.03.2016 in W.P.(C)No.12408 of 2016, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the State to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 revision petition, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. Alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Ext.P7 judgment, the petitioner filed Cont. Case (C)No.270 of 2017. During the pendency of that contempt case, the State issued Ext.P8 order dated 30.03.2017, according sanction to approve notional promotion of the petitioner as the Headmistress of Parudur Higher Secondary Sch