Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 44589
[CR]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 21821 OF 2022 PETITIONER:
GEETHAKUMARY. J AGED 50 YEARS HEADMISTRESS, ALL SAINTS HIGH SCHOOL, PUTHAYAM.
691324.
BY ADV S.ABDUL RAZZAK RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PUNALUR. 691 331.
2 THE DIRECTOR, GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 014.
3 THE MANAGER, ALL SAINTS HIGH SCHOOL, PUTHAYAM. 691324.
4 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION (B)
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.
BY ADV.SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR.G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.02.2023, THE COURT ON 1.3.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CR P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.21821 of 2022 ----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2023
Natural justice mandates a hearing prior to cancellation of a promotion based on qualifications, which must include recognized collegiate training such as B.Ed or equivalent.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Education Rules, 1959 - Chapter XIV(A), Rule 44 and Rule 44A - Headmistress promotion cancellation - Approval initially granted by the District Educational Officer was later revoked on grounds of graduate service qualifications not being met - Court found cancellation without a hearing to be unjustified - Promotions must adhere to qualifications outlined, and collegiate training such as B.Ed is required - Acharya course recognized as equivalent training - Petitioner’s qualifications upheld. (Paras 8, 11, 18, 21)
(B) Natural Justice - Requirement of an opportunity to be heard prior to revocation of approvals and promotions - Denial of hearing can render decisions invalid as per principles of natural justice. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of her promotion to Headmistress citing she met the qualifications as per Kerala Education Rules including a degree and adequate service duration. The State's order for cancellation claimed deficiencies in qualifications without due opportunity for the petitioner to present her case (Exts.P11, P15).
Findings of Court:
The order of cancellation was unjust as it violated the principles of natural justice by failing to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The petitioner possesses the required qualifications for her role and the cancellation substantially lacks justification.
Issues: The main issues involved were whether the petitioner met the required qualifications for the Headmistress post and whether the cancellation of the promotion was valid without adherence to natural justice principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that the Acharya certification qualifies as adequate training under the rules, and an absence of a hearing before deciding the cancellation renders the order ineffective. The principles of natural justice require a chance for the impacted party to defend their position prior to any revocation.
Result: Writ petition allowed; cancellation orders quashed and promotion reinstated with all associated benefits to be provided.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, Smt.Geethakumary.J, was promoted as Headmistress against a retirement vacancy that arose on 01.04.2017 in the 3rd respondent’s school, who is The Manager of All Saints Higher Secondary School, Puthayam, which is an aided High School. Currently, she is continuing in that post. The 1st respondent, The District Educational Officer, approved the said promotion and a copy of the appointment order with the approval order is Ext.P1 in this writ petition. The petitioner was originally appointed as High School Assistant (Hindi) (for short, “HSA”) with effect from 02.06.2003 as per Ext.P2 and the same was approved as evident by the endorsement in Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 promotion as Headmistress was after the completion of 13 years of approved graduate service as HSA. The petitioner has B.A Degree Certificate (Hindi) and M.A Degree Certificate (Hindi), Exts.P3 and P4 are the Certificates to prove the same.
2. As per Ext.P5 Government Order, ‘Acharya Course’ of the Kerala Hindi Prachara Sabha from Hindi Teacher's Training College, Thiruvananthapuram was treated as equivalent training qualification as prescribed under Rule 44A of Chapter XIV(A) and Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as,“ KER ”). It is the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent, the State of Kerala, represented by Principal Secretary, General Education Department also made requisite amendment to the relevant rules with retrospective effect in Ext.P5 Government Order as evident by Ext.P6 Government Order. It is the case of the petitioner that, at the time of appointment as HSA (Hindi), the petitioner had the requisite training qualifications. Ext.P7 is the Acharya Certificate issued to the petitioner by the Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha dated 12.11.1992. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has also obtained B.Ed Degree in December 2013 as evident by Ext.P8. The petitioner has also passed the Account Test (Lower) and the test on Kerala Education Act and Rules conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission in the year 2012. Exts.P9 and P10 are the Certificates to prove the same.
3. The petitioner was the senior most in the combined seniority list of High School Assistants maintained as per Rule 34 (a) of Chapter XIV(A) of KER , at the time of Ext.P1 promotion as Headmistress. Ext.P1 promotion was approved with effect from 01.04.2017 by the 1st respondent. Therefore, according to the petitioner, as on the date of occurrence of vacancy of Headmistress, the petitioner possessed all the qualifications as prescribed under Chapter XIV(A), Rule 44 and Rule 44A read with the Explanations to sub-rule (1) of Rule 44A. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had more than 13 years of continuous graduate service with requisite collegiate training which was prescribed as equivalent. But the Additional Director, General Education Department, Thiruvanathapuram, as per Ext.P11 cancelled the approval granted for Ext.P1 promotion by stating that the petitioner did not possess the graduate service qualification as stipulated under Rule 44A in Chapter XIV(A) of . As per Ext.P12, the 2nd respondent refused to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by Ext.P11 order, the petitioner availed a statutory revision before the 4th respondent. Thereafter the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.40318/2018 challenging Ext.P11. In that writ petition, as per Ext.P13 order, the reversion of the petitioner was stayed but the payment of headmaster's scale of pay was deferred.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the above writ petition was finally disposed of as per Ext.P14 judgment by directing the disposal of the statutory revision by the 4th respondent. Thereafter, all the parties were heard by the Joint Secretary of the 4th respondent. But the revision was dismissed as per Ext.P15. Aggrieved by Exts.P11 and P15, this writ petition is filed.
5. Heard Adv.S.A.Razak
