Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41639
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
JEENA A.MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/18635/2021
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA V.A.MUHAMMED V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
Teachers over 50 are permanently exempt from obligatory tests for promotions under Kerala Education Rules, influencing the validity of associated appointments.
Headnote:
Exemption - Appointment - Kerala Education Rules - [KER 45B(4), Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules 2011] - The court ruled that teachers over 50 are permanently exempt from tests, validating the petitioner's promotion as Headmistress despite previous disqualifications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of her appointment as Headmistress, asserting her eligibility under the exemption for teachers over 50 years, despite prior denials based on test qualifications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the exemption under Rule 45B(4) of the KER and the amendment to the Education Rules retroactively applied, thus qualifying the petitioner for her appointment despite prior procedural issues.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to approval for her appointment as Headmistress under the age exemption provisions despite not passing certain tests.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that since the petitioner was over 50 years old at the time of her appointment, she was entitled to exemptions from tests, invalidating the reasons for the denial of approval.
Final Decision: The petition was granted, approving the petitioner's appointment and directing the disbursement of dues.
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 order issued by the 4th respondent by which, the request for approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress of the MT Lower Primary School, Parippra stands denied.
2. Brief facts are as under:
The petitioner contends that she entered aided school service as an Upper Primary School Teacher in the AM Upper Primary School, Mampad on 30.07.1987. According to the petitioner, after having served in various schools under the management, she was finally promoted and appointed as Headmistress as per Ext.P1 order in the MT Lower Primary School, Panippra with effect from 01.06.2019 onwards in a regular vacancy. She contends that though the papers relating to the proposal for approval were initially rejected on the ground of delay, the 3rd respondent, by Ext.P3 order granted condonation. She contends that, owing to the delay in considering the proposal for approval, the petitioner worked without salary and allowances, and it was only by Ext.P4 order passed by the 4th respondent that she was granted lower scale salary. While so, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement and the same was granted to her as per Ext.P5 order with effect from 31.03.2020. She contends that the respondents are bound to grant approval for the period of the service of the petitioner as Headmistress from 01.06.2019 to 31.03.2020. The petitioner asserts that she had attained 50 years of age as on 30.05.2018, and hence she is entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in Rule 45B(4) of Chapter XIV A of the KER . It is contended that, though under Section 18 (1) of the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 , a teacher is required to pass departmental tests and test on Kerala Education Act and Rules, by Ext.P8 amendment brought into the Rules, teachers, who are otherwise eligible for being promoted as Head teachers are exempted from passing such departmental test on or after attaining the age of 50 years. It is contended that in view of the exemption so granted, the respondents were bound to grant approval for the period from 01.06.2019 to 31.03.2020. It is in the above background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P7 order issued by respondent
iii)To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to disburse the entire amount of Death Cum Retirement Gratuity covered by Ext.P9 proceedings along with compensatory interest for the delay thus occurred in the light of the Ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.K.Dua Vs.State of Haryana and Another (2008 KHC 4047) forthwith or within such time as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
iv) To issue a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to have her appointment approved for the period from 1/6/2019 to 31/3/2020 as Headmistress in M.T.Lower Primary School, Panipra along with salary and allowances as in the case of the similarly situated persons covered by Ext.P8 order and denial of the same by Ext.P7 order on the ground that she was not test qualified is absolutely unsustainable and untenable in law and ultravires of the provisions contained in Rule 45B(4) of Chapter XIVA KER and Ext.P6 amendment rendering the same liable to be
