Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24571
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
VIAS BHAT.C – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 22357 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.RAGHUNATHAN, M.SALIM, R.SRINATH, K.JALADHARAN, V.M.JACOB, ASOKAKUMAR B.
For the Respondents: SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN, SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON, SMT. ANIMA M.
Eligibility for appointment depends on being part of the staff at the time of vacancy; the petitioner was not eligible.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Education Rules - Rule 35 and Rule 37 - Seniority of Teachers - The petitioner, a protected Teacher, claimed appointment as Headmaster based on seniority, relying on amendments to the Kerala Education Rules. The Court held that the petitioner was not part of the staff at the time of vacancy and thus not eligible for the post. (Paras 5, 8, 18)
(B) Appointment - Eligibility - The Court emphasized that the eligibility for the Headmaster post is contingent on being part of the staff at the time of vacancy, which the petitioner was not, leading to dismissal of the writ petition. (Paras 9, 18)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner claims seniority for headmaster post based on redeployment. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 14) |
| 2. court rules on the ineligibility of the petitioner based on staff status at vacancy. (Para 8) |
| 3. the 6th respondent argues against the petitioner's claim based on seniority list. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court discusses rules regarding seniority and staff eligibility for headmaster. (Para 13 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. the writ petition is dismissed due to lack of merit. (Para 18) |
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2025 The petitioner is an HST (Social Science) working in the Zainudheen Memorial High School, Tirur, Malappuram. The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P9 and to direct respondents 1 to 5 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Headmaster, which arose in the School with effect from 01.06.2024.
2. The petitioner states that he joined as HST (Social Science) in the School on 17.08.1994. His service was approved with effect from 05.06.1995. When there was short fall of students / Divisions, the petitioner was rendered a protected Teacher and was deputed to work in another School with effect from 06.08.2019.
3. While so, a regular vacancy of HST (Social Science) arose in the parent School with effect from 30.04.2024. As the petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 representation for redeployment to the parent School, Ext.P6 order was issued on 29.05.2024 redeploying the petitioner to the parent School. A vacancy of Headmaster arose in the School with effect from 01.06.2024. In spite of the seniority of the petitioner over the 6th respondent, the Manager gave charge of the post of Headmaster to the 6th respondent. Later, the 6th respondent was appointed as Headmaster with effect from 23.06.2024.
4. The petitioner states that the petitioner being senior to the 6th respondent, the petitioner ought to have been appointed as the Principal. The vacancy of the Headmaster arose on 01.06.2024. The petitioner was redeployed to the parent School on 29.05.2024 itself. Therefore, as on 01.06.2024, when the vacancy of Headmaster arose, the petitioner was the senior most Teacher eligible to be appointed as Headmaster.
5. The petitioner submitted that though a Full Bench of this Court in the judgment reported inAbraham A.G and others v. State of Kerala and others [ 2009 (3) KLT 659 ] had held that service of protected Teachers in other Schools cannot be considered for seniority in the parent School, Rule 37 Chapter XIV A was amended as per the Gazette Notification dated 23.07.2010. As per the amendment, the period of service rendered in the parent School or in another School by a Teacher, who is relieved under Rule 52, shall be reckoned for seniority on his reappointment to the parent School. Therefore, in view of the amended Rule 37, Chapter XIV A, Kerala Education Rules , the petitioner is admittedly senior to the 6th respondent and he ought to have been appointed as the Headmaster.
6. Counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that Note (2) below Rule 35 of the Kerala Education Rules states that the seniority list shall be made as on the first day of January every year. The supplementary list during a School year, showing the names of Teachers appointed and got approved by the Controlling Officers shall be sent by the Educational Agency to the authority competent to approve the list before 31st May of every year. The petitioner was redeployed to the parent School on 29.05.2024. Therefore, a supplementary seniority list should have been drawn and the petitioner being senior most in the School, ought to have been appointed as Headmaster.
7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the redeployment of the petitioner to parent School cannot be treated as a new appointment. The petitioner has a lien over the post of HST (Social Science) in the parent School. The petitioner is drawing salary from the parent School. Therefore, on redeployment, the petitioner ought to have been treated as continuing in the service of
