Qualifications for promotion to principal must align with specified educational requirements and regulations, as determined by the governing body.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner, who is a Teacher in the School managed by the 5^th respondent, seeks to direct the 5^th respondent-Manager to promote him as Principal of Seethi Sahib Memorial Orphanage Teacher Training Institute, Tirurangadi and to declare that the 6^th respondent is not qualified to continue as Teacher Educator based on the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations, 2014.

2. The petitioner states that he was appointed as UPSA on 07.06.1993. The 5^th respondent is managing three Schools. The petitioner has M.A. with 50% marks and M.Ed with 60%, which is the necessary qualification for appointment to the post of Teacher Educator. Earlier, the posts of HSA and TSA (Training School Assistant, now re- designated as Teacher Educator) were interchangeable posts. After the formation of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), the qualifications for the post of Principal as well as Teacher Educator were issued.

3. The petitioner states that the 6^th respondent possesses B.Sc Mathematics and B.Ed in Mathematics. However, his M.Ed was in Arts. The petitioner was promoted to the post of TSA on 08.10.2001. At that time, he did not have the mandatory qualification for appointment to the post of Principal. As per the NCTE norms, the qualification prescribed for the post of Princiapl is Masters Degree with M.Ed. The KER mandates passing of Account Test (Lower) and also passing of Kerala Education Act and Rules. The 6^th respondent did not have test qualification whereas the petitioner has passed Account Test (Lower) and also passed the test in Kerala Education Act and Rules.

4. The incumbent to the post of Principal of the Teachers Training Institute managed by the 5^th respondent retired from service on 31.03.2023. The petitioner is the only qualified person under the Corporate Educational Agency eligible to be promoted as Principal. However, the Manager promoted one K.K. Usman. The Deputy Director of Education rejected approval to the appointment of K.K. Usman. The Manager thereupon reverted Sri.K.K. Usman and appointed the 6^th respondent as Principal-in-charge.

5. The petitioner states that none of the Teachers under the 5^th respondent educational agency have qualifications for appointment to the post of Principal. The 6^th respondent did not have the Masters Degree in Mathematics. He has also not passed the test qualifications prescribed for the post of Teacher Educator. Therefore, respondents 1 to 5 are liable to be compelled to appoint the petitioner as Principal.

6. The 5^th respondent filed counter affidavit.

The 5^th respondent stated that the 6^th respondent is duly qualified for the post of Principal. The 5^th respondent stated that Ext.P8 Circular issued by the Government of Kerala does not prescribe any qualification for Principal. Therefore, Ext.P8 cannot adversely affect the 6^th respondent. The 6^th respondent had been serving the TTI from June, 2010 onwards. For appointment to the post of Principal, what is required is Post Graduation (55%) and M.Ed with five years experience. The 6^th respondent satisfies the conditions.

7. The 6^th respondent also filed counter affidavit. The 6^th respondent stated that he is now teaching the subjects of Sociology in which he has Masters Degree and he has B.Ed and M.Ed in Mathematics. The petitioner who is having PG in History is taking classes in the subjects of Psychology, Social Science and Physical Education. The writ petition is without merit. The 6^th respondent is fully qualified as per NCTE norms.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Governmen