High Court Kerala High Court

K.R.Vijayan vs The State Of Kerala on 13 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
K.R.Vijayan vs The State Of Kerala on 13 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17633 of 2003(Y)


1. K.R.VIJAYAN, S/O. LATE RAGHAVA WARRIER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

4. THE MANAGER, BRAHMANANDODAYAM HIGH

5. SMT.K.SARADAMANI, (HEADMASTER APPOINTEE)

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :13/11/2009

 O R D E R
                T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                  W.P.(C). No.17633/2003-Y
                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Dated this the 13th day of November, 2009

                      J U D G M E N T

The petitioner was working as a High School Assistant

(Sanskrit) having the qualification of B.A (Sanskrit) and

Shiksha Shasthri (B.Ed). A vacancy of Headmaster arose in

the school on 01/06/1999. The main relief sought for in the

writ petition is to quash Exts.P8 and P9. He further seeks

for a direction to the Government to appoint him as

Headmaster with effect from 01/06/1999.

2. The issue is covered against the petitioner in the

light of the decision of the learned Single Judge in

Susamma Varghese v. State of Kerala [2002 (1) KLT SN.26,

(C.No.30)]. It was directed that Shiksha Shasthri

Examination can be treated as equivalent to B.Ed for

purposes of promotion to the post of Headmaster in aided

schools if the date of occurrence of vacancy is after

03/08/2001 when amendment was effected to R.2(1) Chapter

XXXI making equivalent qualification also admissible. The

said Judgment have been confirmed in Writ Appeal

No.77/2002. Herein, the vacancy arose prior to that date

and hence, the petitioner is not eligible. The writ

petition is dismissed. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

ms