The lack of a vacancy in a specific teaching subject in the Higher Secondary section does not disqualify an eligible Headmaster from appointment by transfer as Principal under the Kerala Education Rules.

JUDGMENT :

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.

The petitioner is working as Headmistress of L.M.S. Tamil High School, Parassala under the Corporate Management of the 4^th respondent. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 order passed by the 2^nd respondent and Ext.P10 order passed by the Government by which, the claim put forward by the petitioner, to appoint her as the Principal of the Higher Secondary School under the management of the 4^th respondent corporate management, was declined and respondents 5 to 7 were appointed against the said vacancies, as per Ext. P12 series of orders.

2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

Under the 4^th respondent, there are three Higher Secondary Schools, namely, (i) L.M.S. H.S.S. Amaravila, (ii)L.M.S. H.S.S. Chemboor and (iii) L.M.S. H.S.S. Vattapara. Three vacancies of 'Principal' in the said schools arose on 30.04.2021 and 31.05.2021. The 4^th respondent issued a Circular on 27.05.2021 inviting applications for the post of 'Principals' of Higher Secondary Schools.

3. According to the petitioner, petitioner being the Headmistress of the High School under the 4^th respondent management, is entitled to be appointed as 'Principal' against one of the said vacancies, by way of by transfer appointment as contemplated under Chapter XXXII, Rule 4 of Kerala Education Rules(KER). The said provision contemplates for a ratio of 2:1, between the Aided Higher Secondary School Teachers and Headmasters of Aided High Schools under the same management, for appointment of Principals. However, the claim made by the petitioner in this regard was rejected by the 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P4 order, on the reason that, there is no vacancy available in Higher Secondary Department, for the subject of the petitioner, i.e., Hindi, and hence, the petitioner cannot be appointed as the Principal. Against the same, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 appeal before the Government and the said appeal was directed to be disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment rendered by this Court, within a time frame. In Ext.P6, this Court directed the Government to consider the claim of the petitioner, after taking note of the principles laid down by this Court in Thomas v. State of Kerala [2013 (4) KLT 257].

4. The Government, after hearing all the parties concerned, passed Ext.P10 order, rejecting the contentions of the petitioner as well as her claim. The observations made by this Court in Thomas's case (supra) were not made applicable to the petitioner, by relying upon Ext.P11 Government Order passed on 03.05.2023, wherein, it is specifically stipulated that, unless the subject of the incumbent is available in the Higher Secondary section, the Principal post cannot be filled up with the said person. Thus, as per Ext.P10, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Respondents 5 to 7 are the persons who were appointed against the vacancies which arose on 30.04.2021 and 31.05.2021. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging the said orders and also seeking a direction to the 4^th respondent, to appoint the petitioner as the 'Principal' of one of the Higher Secondary Schools, with effect from 24.06.2021.

5. A counter affidavit is submitted on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, where the contentions raised by the petitioner are seriously disputed and the reliefs are objected. Separate counter affidavits were filed by the 1^st, 4^th and 5^th respondents. The petitioner had filed a reply affidavit in