Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21587
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J
V N GIRIJA – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER Advocate -GOVERNMENT PLEADER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 29977/2011
The appointment of a Headmaster is mandated by qualifications and seniority, not affected by student strength norms in certain circumstances under education law.
Headnote:
Education - Appointment of Headmaster - Kerala Education Rules, 1959; Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Sections 19, 25 - The court held that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Headmaster as per her qualifications and continuous service, irrespective of student strength limits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, after years of service as a teacher, requested appointment as Headmaster but was denied by the school manager on grounds related to qualification and student strength, leading her to seek legal remedy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner fulfilled all qualifications and service requirements for the position of Headmaster according to the Kerala Education Rules, and the objections on student strength were not valid under the law.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, having the required qualifications and seniority, was entitled to be appointed as Headmaster despite arguments regarding student strength and a pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that existing regulations and the petitioner’s qualifications mandated her appointment as Headmaster independent of the student strength criterion.
Final Decision: The petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Headmaster with effect from the date she completed 12 years of service.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is an aided school teacher. She was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA for short) by the first respondent Manager, initially against a leave vacancy that was in existence during the period from 1.7.1994 to 30.3.1995. The Assistant Educational Officer, Thodupuzha approved the said appointment by order passed on 22.12.1994. When the vacancy terminated, the petitioner was relieved from service.
2. Recognising her claim under rule 51-A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules , 1959, (for short the KER ), the first respondent Manager re-appointed the petitioner as LPSA with effect from 5.6.1995. The said appointment was initially not approved. Later, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 10.10.2003 in O.P.No.14450 of 1995, the Assistant Educational Officer, Thoudupuzha approved the petitioner's appointment as LPSA with effect from 5.6.1995. When the Headmaster of the school proceeded on leave during the period from 6.9.1999 to 16.2.2000, the petitioner was appointed as Teacher-in- charge in that leave vacancy. When the Headmaster retired from service on 31.3.2000, the petitioner was appointed as teacher-in- charge of the school with effect from 1.4.2000. Even now, the petitioner is continuing as the teacher-in-charge of the school.
3. After the petitioner completed 15 years of service, she submitted a representation dated 22.1.2010 requesting the Manager to appoint her as Headmaster of the school. She thereafter submitted yet another representation dated 13.5.2010 before the Assistant Educational Officer. The Assistant Educational Officer, thereupon issued a communication dated 5.6.2010 to the Manager calling for his explanation in the matter. The Manager in turn submitted a reply dated 18.6.2010. When the Assistant Educational Officer did not take a decision on the representation dated 13.5.2010, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.36569 of 2010, in which, she prayed for the following reliefs :-
“(i) to issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, calling for the records leading to Ext.P5, reply of the 1st respondent, and to quash the same.
(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order, directing the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of headmaster of St.John's L.P.School,
4. W.P.(C)No.36569 of 2010 was heard and disposed of at the stage of admission by Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 23.12.2010 with a direction to the Assistant Educational Officer to take final decision on the representation dated 13.5.2010 submitted by the petitioner (a copy of which was produced and marked as Ext.P3B in the said writ petition) after affording all the parties an opportunity of being heard. The Assistant Educational Officer accordingly heard the parties on 31.1.2011 and issued Ext.P5 order dated 8.2.2011 whereby, he directed the Manager to appoint the senior most teacher of the school as Headmaster in terms of rule 44 of Chapter XIV of the KER and to report compliance. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the first respondent to appoint her as Headmaster with effect from 18.9.2010, the date on which she became qualified to be appointed as Headmaster. She also seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Assistant Educational Officer to initiate action against the first respondent for not complying with Ext.P5 order.
5. The main ground raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner is fully qualified for the post of Headmaster of a lower primary school, that she has the prescribed experience and has passed the prescribed departmental tests and therefore, the failure of the Manager to appoint her as Headmaster is arbitrary and illega
