A writ appeal filed by a teacher challenging the selection of a Headmaster in a special school was dismissed after the appellant informed the court that the appeal was no longer being pressed.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.34972 of 2024, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs;

“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P7 and P12 as unjust, illegal, and unsustainable;

(i)(a) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P18 as unjust, illegal and arbitrary.

ii. To declare that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the post of Headmaster in the 5^th respondent's school and such appointment is entitled to be approved for the said date with effect from 01.06.2024;

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to pass orders appointing the petitioner as Headmaster in CSI VHSS for the Deaf, Thiruvalla, with effect from 01.06.2024 and to approve such appointment;

iv. To declare that the appointment and approval of the 7^threspondent to the post of Headmaster in CSI VHSS for the Deaf, Thiruvalla is illegal, unjust and arbitrary;

v. To issue such other orders, directions, or writs as may be prayed for under the facts and circumstances of the case.

vi. To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular document.”

2. The writ petition was dismissed by the judgment dated

13.05.2025 of the learned Single Judge. Paragraphs 18 to 21 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;

“18. Ext.P6 Government Order governing qualifications and methods of appointment to the Special Schools would indicate their 10 years service in teaching the blind/deaf is the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Headmaster in special Schools. If qualified Teachers with the 10 years of service in teaching the blind/deaf are not available, qualified Teachers with five years of service or more will be eligible for promotion as Teacher-in-charge of special Schools. Ext.P6 nowhere states that seniority for appointment as Headmaster should be based on the seniority in the category of HST. In fact, there is no indication in Ext.P6 that the category of HST is the feeder category for appointment/ promotion to the post of Headmaster.

19. The petitioner as well as the 7^th respondent were appointed in the School initially as UPSA on the same date namely 02.06.1997. As the date of joining of the petitioner and the 7^th respondent is the same, the School appointed the 7^th respondent as Headmaster, following Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIVA of KER.

20. The argument of the petitioner that provisions of the KER and Ext.P6 Government order should be construed harmoniously, and going by the general rules of service law, seniority in the feeder category should be taken as basis for promotion, cannot be accepted. This is because Ext.P6 is a Government order issued specifically to govern Special Schools and the conditions for appointment as Headmasters, have been laid down in Ext.P6 in clear terms. In the judgment in Sherin M. Chandy v. State and others [1993 KHC 253], this Court has held that the provisions of Chapter XIVA of KER are not applicable in the case of Teachers appointed in the Special Schools for handicapped in the State.

21. As both the petitioner and the 7^th respondent were appointed in service on the same day, the 5^th respondent appointed the 7^th respondent as Headmaster based on age, following the spirit of Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIV of KER. I do not find any illegality and arbitrariness in the appointment of the 7^th respondent as Headmaster.

The writ petition is therefore without any merit and it is dismissed.”

3. Challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.34972 of 2024, the appellant-petitioner has filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

4. On 25.11.2025, when this writ appeal came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 4. Adv. V. Philip Mathews took notice for the 5^th respondent and Adv. S. Subhash Chand for the 7^th respondent. Urgent notic