Back
2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 61219
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ
SMITHA PAUL – Appellant
Versus
K ALI – Respondent
REVIEW PETITION 523/2018
The 2011 Rules on education qualifications govern over traditional KER provisions when explicitly stated.
Headnote:
Review - Education - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules - Rule 18(1) - The court recalled a prior judgment, stating that it needed to consider specific qualifications for the post of Headmaster under the 2011 Rules, which prevails over the KER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a review of a judgment regarding qualifications for the Headmaster position, arguing that the newly enacted 2011 Rules superseded the existing laws.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded the previous judgment did not adequately consider the qualifications outlined in the 2011 Rules and acknowledged a previous decision emphasizing the supremacy of these rules.
Issues: Whether the qualifications for Headmaster outlined in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules should have been considered in the prior judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that specific qualifications provided in the 2011 Rules must be given precedence over the existing KER provisions, necessitating a review of the initial judgment.
Final Decision: The review petitions were allowed, and the previous judgment was recalled.
O R D E R
Shaffique, J.
These two review petitions are filed seeking to review common judgment dated 13/11/2017 in WA Nos.1472/17 and 1514/2017. One of the contentions urged by the appellant was that, after coming into force of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules in the year 2011, the qualification for appointment to the post of Headmaster is specifically mentioned in Rule 18(1) of the 2011 Rules. Though such a contention was urged in the memorandum of appeals, the same has not been considered. As a result, this Court proceeded on the basis that the qualification prescribed under the KER applies to the fact situation. In so far as specific ground had been taken in the writ petitions as well as in the memorandum of appeals, necessarily, this Court should have considered the same as well. That apart, a Division Bench of this Court in Principal, Jawahar English Medium School, Tvm and another v. Simi A.C and Others (2014 (4) KLT 877) has held that in respect of matters which are specifically mentioned in the 2011 Rules, it will prevail over the provisions contained in the KER.
2. Having regard to the aforesaid fact situation, we are of the view that since such an issue requires consideration, the judgment is to be recalled. Accordingly, the review petitions are allowed and the impugned judgment dated 13/11/2017 is recalled.
Post the writ appeals for hearing on 24/6/2019 before the appropriate Court.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE
