A managing committee member working as teacher cannot claim appointment or promotion as Headmaster/Headmistress due to Rule 8 prohibition; writ court should decline interference when efficacious revision remedy under Rule 8A exists.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7713 of 2022, which was one filed invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P13 order dated 20.09.2021 of the 3^rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer, Chathannoor; a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the management of Thazhuthala Muslim U.P. School alone has the right to appoint a person of its choice in the school and not the Manager, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew [(2017) 15 SCC 595]; and a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that Ext.P4 proceedings dated 31.06.2021 and Ext.P7 proceedings dated 12.06.2021 of the 1^st respondent Manager are illegal, arbitrary and against Ext.P18 bye-law of the corporate body managing Thazhuthala Muslim U.P. School.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellant-petitioner, who was appointed as U.P. School Assistant (later redesignated as U.P. School Teacher) in Thazhuthala Muslim U.P. School on 19.12.1990, is the seniormost U.P. School Teacher (UPST) as per Ext.P1 seniority list prepared as on 01.01.2021. Since the incumbent holding the post of the Headmaster is retiring on 31.05.2021, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation dated 31.05.2021 before the 1^st respondent Manager (the then Manager) claiming promotion as the Headmistress of the school, under Rule 44 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER). She has also preferred Ext.P3 representation dated 31.05.2021 before the Headmaster of the school. According to the petitioner, though Thazhuthala Muslim U.P. School is under corporate management, the 1^st respondent Manager had individually taken a decision to promote the 2^nd respondent, who is junior to the petitioner, as the Headmistress of the school. 2.1. The 1^st respondent Manager issued Ext.P4 proceedings dated 31.06.2021, whereby the 2^nd respondent was promoted as the Headmistress of the school, with effect from 01.06.2021. Based on Ext.P4 proceedings, the 1^st respondent Manager issued Ext.P5 appointment order, which is one dated 01.06.2021, whereby the 2^nd respondent was appointed as the Headmistress of the school, with effect from 01.06.2021. The document marked as Ext.P5(a) is a copy of the appointment order dated 01.06.2021, wherein it is stated as follows;

“Certified as ‘Minority School’ by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions.”

Challenging the appointment of the 2^nd respondent as the Headmistress of the school, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 memorandum of appeal dated 01.06.2021 before the 3^rd respondent Assistant Education Officer, Chathannoor.

2.2. The 1^st respondent Manager issued Ext.P7 proceedings dated 12.06.2021, wherein it is stated that the 2^nd respondent is promoted as the Headmistress of the school, with effect from 01.06.2021, on the strength of the minority status given to the school vide order C.-F-No.3014 of 2012-14983 dated 28.05.2014 of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institution. The 1^st respondent Manager submitted Ext.P8 proposal dated 12.06.2021 before the 3^rd respondent Assistant Education Officer, Chathannoor, for approval of the appointment of the 2^nd respondent as the Headmistress of the school, with effect from 01.06.2021. The proposal for approval of the appointment of the 2^nd respondent was rejected by the 3^rd respondent Assistant Education Officer, vide Ext.P9 order dated 29.06.2021, stating the delay in submission of the proposal, and that the approved seniority list is not submitted along with the proposal, and that correct date is not recorded in the affidavit sworn to by the Manager and the appointee.

2.3. Even before the issuance of Ext.P9 order, the 1^st respondent Manager had approached the 5^th respondent Deputy Director of Education, Kollam, with