The rejection of a Principal's appointment based on an unrelated Government Order was ruled improper; prior legal principles must be considered.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner joined the service of the school managed by the 4^th respondent as HSA in the year 1993 and was promoted to the cadre of Headmaster with effect from 01.04.2016. Later, the Manager appointed the petitioner as Principal with effect from 10.06.2021, and the petitioner sought approval of his appointment as Principal. However, the 3^rd respondent, by order dated Ext.P12, rejected the approval of the petitioner’s appointment as Principal. The appeal as well as the subsequent revision filed by the Manager against the aforesaid order were also unsuccessful. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. Heard Sri.Murali Pallath, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Shylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader.

3. The revision filed by the Manager was rejected pursuant to the order at Ext.P6, essentially placing reliance on the Government Order dated 03.05.2023, produced as Ext.P7 along with the writ petition.

4. In my opinion, the revision ought not to have been rejected with reference to the contents of Ext.P7 Government Order, insofar as the said Government Order was issued in May 2023, whereas the petitioner was appointed as Principal with effect from 10.06.2021. Furthermore, the reason stated for rejection in Ext.P2, which found favour with the appellate authority as well as the Government, is that another teacher has already been working in the educational institution as HSST (Hindi), and therefore, no post is available to accommodate the petitioner. However, the aforesaid issue has already been considered by this Court in Jayaraj V.P. And Another v. State of Kerala and Others [2016 (2) KLT 200] wherein it was held that when a Headmaster is promoted as Principal in the Higher Secondary Section and HSSTs are available in the concerned subjects, the junior-most HSST in that subject is liable to be continued in a supernumerary post. 5. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment, I am of the opinion that the petitioner’s request for approval of his appointment ought to have been considered in the light of the mandate contained in Jayaraj V.P.

And Another v. State of Kerala and Others [2016 (2) KLT 200]. However, the said issue has not been addressed by the Government with reference to the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgment while issuing the impugned order at Ext.P6.

In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P6. The Government is directed to consider the matter afresh, with specific reference to the principles laid down by this Court in Jayaraj V.P. And Another v. State of Kerala and Others [2016 (2) KLT 200] . Orders as above shall be issued after affording the petitioner an effective opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-