Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA AND 2 OTHERS – Respondent
WP(C)/30638/2009
Appointment - Education - Kerala Education Rules - The court examined the provisions of the amended Kerala Education Rules regarding the appointment of a Principal under minority rights and the implications of the relevant procedures for approval.
Fact of the Case:
The Corporate Manager of a Corporate Educational Agency contested the non-approval of the appointment of a Principal in St.Antony’s School, claiming compliance with minority rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court suggested that the 2nd respondent reconsider the appointment in light of the amended rules, indicating that proper procedures must be followed for approval.
Issues: The central issue involves whether the appointment of the Principal adheres to the amended Kerala Education Rules and the Special Rules required for approval.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revised rules should be considered for approval of the appointment, emphasizing adherence to proper procedural requirements.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, allowing reconsideration of the appointment under the amended rules.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner herein is the Corporate Manager of a Corporate Educational Agency, Thrissur. The matter relates to the non-approval of appointment of 4th respondent as Principal in St.Antony’s Higher Secondary School established by the Corporate Educational Agency. She was appointed as Principal with effect from 2.5.2006 in the light of the minority right conferred under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India . It is also stated that when she so appointed she was the senior-most teacher, for appointment in the said post.
2. By Ext.P2, certain documents were required by the 2nd respondent to which a reply was forwarded as per Ext.P3. Second respondent took the stand as per Ext.P4 that the appointment cannot be approved since the Selection Committee Minutes as per Special Rules has not been furnished. Fourth respondent challenged the same in W.P. (C) No.8361/08 , wherein, a direction was issued to 3rd respondent herein to take a decision on 4th respondent's representation. The 3rd respondent finally rejected the 4th respondent’s request as per Ext.P6. Again, a revision petition has been filed as per Ext.P7. Government rejected the revision petition as per Ext.P8 stating that the appointment was not in accordance with the Special Rules. Petitioner is now relying upon Ext.P9 amendment of the Kerala Education Rules, whereby, the relevant rules have been modified. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the light of the above, the 2nd respondent has to approve the appointment of the 4th respondent. Ext.P10 is the proceedings which shows that the minority status have been conferred on the institution also.
3. Learned Government Pleader on instructions, submitted that to enable the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter, petitioner will have to submit a proposal and if the same is resubmitted in terms of the amended rules, the same can be considered and appropriate orders will be passed.
If the petitioner submits a proposal to the 2nd respondent, he will pass a fresh order in terms of the amendment of the rules, expeditiously.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
T.R RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE ma
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
