Minority educational institutions have the right to appoint qualified headmasters without strict adherence to seniority rules.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2026 The 1^st petitioner is the Manager of AKM High School, Kudavoor, a Minority Educational Institution. The 2^nd petitioner was appointed as Headmaster with effect from 02.06.2025 against a regular vacancy arising on the retirement of the incumbent Headmistress. The appointment was made by the Management after a comparative assessment of eligible candidates, taking into account merit, qualifications and administrative suitability.

2. Approval to the appointment was declined by the District Educational Officer solely on the ground that seniority was not followed, ignoring the settled legal position that a Minority Management has the right to choose any qualified person as Head of the Institution without being bound by seniority or the requirement of obtaining relinquishment from seniors. The 2^nd petitioner is fully qualified for the post.

3. The impugned orders are contrary to binding precedents of this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court. Statutory remedies are pending before the competent authorities. Any delay in granting approval to the appointment would cause serious prejudice to the effective administration of the School, contend the petitioners.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4.

5. The petitioners would submit that the

1^st petitioner’s School is a duly declared Minority Educational Institution and the statutory provisions relating to seniority under the Kerala Education Rules cannot be mechanically enforced so as to dilute the constitutional protection available to the management in the matter of appointment of Headmasters. Therefore, the petitioners seek to declare that the 2^nd petitioner is entitled to get approval to his promotion as Headmaster as per Exts.P2 and P2(a).

6. Be that as it may, I find that in this regard, the 2^nd petitioner has filed Ext.P9 Revision Appeal before the 2^nd respondent invoking the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 .

7. In the facts of the case, it would be only just and proper that the 2^nd respondent considers Ext.P9 Revision Appeal and takes appropriate decision within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P9 and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the Manager.

Sd/-