Eligibility for promotion as Headmaster requires fulfillment of teaching experience and qualifications as per RTE Rules; amendments do not apply retrospectively.

JUDGMENT :

N. Nagaresh, J.

W.P.(C) No.8670/2023 has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

“Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to quash the original of Exts.P3 and P5 orders.”

2. W.P.(C) No.18319/2024 has been filed by the additional 4^th respondent seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get promotion as Headmaster from 01.06.2023 onwards with all consequential benefits.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 6^th respondent-Manager to implement Exts.P6 and P7 by appointing the petitioner as Headmaster by promotion with effect from 01.06.2023 onwards.”

3. The parties and exhibits are described in this judgment as they are referred to and marked in W.P.(C) No.8670/2023, for convenience.

4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8670/2023 states that she is at present working as Teacher-in-Charge in the 3^rd respondent’s School. A retirement vacancy of Headmaster arose in the School on 31.08.2016. The petitioner would submit that she has passed KER in the month of January, 2016 and Account Test in June, 2016. The petitioner is therefore qualified to be appointed as Headmaster in the School.

5. Though the petitioner approached the Assistant Educational Officer, the AEO rejected approval of appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner should have 12 years teaching experience as per the amended Government Order dated 09.07.2018. The petitioner states that the vacancy of Headmaster in the School arose in the year 2016 and the amendment came in the year 2018. Therefore, the crucial date for consideration of qualification is the date of occurrence of vacancy.

6. The petitioner therefore filed a Revision Petition before the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent rejected the same without taking into consideration the fact that the amendment rules have no retrospective operation. The petitioner would submit that as on the crucial date, no other person is eligible to be promoted as Headmaster.

7. The additional 4^th respondent filed W.P.(C) No.18319/2024. The additional 4^th respondent submitted that he got approved continuous service as UPST from 01.06.2011 onwards. He was appointed against a retirement vacancy which arose on 01.04.2011. The vacancy of Headmaster arose in the School when one Smt.Nancy Samuel, Headmistress voluntarily retired from service on 31.08.2016. None of the UPSTs in the School were qualified for appointment by promotion as Headmaster on 01.09.2016. The additional 4^th respondent, being the seniormost UPST, was therefore made Teacher-in-Charge.

8. However, the petitioner filed a complaint on a mistaken notion that the petitioner is fully qualified for the post of Headmaster and the seniormost UPST, and the additional 4^th respondent is not qualified for appointment as Headmaster. The additional 4^th respondent submitted that the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam, as per letter dated 08.08.2022, has reported to the DGE that the additional 4^th respondent is the rightful claimant for appointing as Teacher-in-Charge on 01.09.2016 in the absence of qualified hands for appointment by promotion as Headmaster on 01.09.2016, the date of occurrence of vacancy.

9. The additional 4^th respondent further submitted that the Assistant Educational Officer, Karunagappally, as per his letter dated 05.09.2023, has directed the Manager to appoint the additional 4^th respondent as Headmaster forthwith as the Government has rejected the request of the petitioner. The Manager has