IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18742 of 2008(F)
1. JOHN ALEXANDER.A,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, DEVAMATHA
4. SMT. ANNIE.A.K,
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :28/07/2008
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 18742 OF 2008 F
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th July, 2008
JUDGMENT
On 15.7.1980, the petitioner was appointed as UPSA in
St.Joseph’s U.P.School, Pangarapilly, Thrissur District, which is an
educational institution under the corporate management of the third
respondent. It is stated that the petitioner is having the qualification of
Pre-degree and training qualification of TTC and that he passed Account
Test (Lower) also. There are other schools under the corporate
management of the third respondent. It is stated that the fourth
respondent is junior to the petitioner as the fourth respondent was
appointed as LPSA only on 8.6.1982.
2. It is stated that vacancies of Headmasters arose in different
schools managed by the Corporate Educational Agency of the third
respondent. Applications were invited as per Ext.P2. The petitioner
submitted Ext.P3 application for selection to the post of Headmaster. The
petitioner was invited for the interview as per Ext.P4 interview memo. He
appeared for the interview on 15.3.2008. The grievance of the petitioner
is that as per Ext.P6, overlooking the seniority of the petitioner, the fourth
respondent was appointed as Headmaster.
W.P.(C) NO.18742 OF 2008
:: 2 ::
3. It is admitted that the School concerned is a minority
educational institution. A Full Bench of this Court in Kurian Lizy v. State
of Kerala (2006 (4) KLT 264 (F.B.)) has held thus:
“… So, all minority educational institutions, which
propose to select the best person to the post of
Headmaster/Principal of a School or College, as the case
may be, ignoring seniority in the feeder category or ignoring
the available teachers, should frame and publish regulations
or bye-laws, containing a transparent procedure, governing
such selection. The publication can be made in the Notice
Board of the educational institution concerned and a copy of
it should be available in school/college library for reference.
When superseding a senior qualified member of the minority
community the reasons thereof should be clear from the
records. The question as framed in the beginning of this
order is thus answered accordingly.”
The contention of the petitioner is that the third respondent has not
followed the dictum laid down by the Full Bench. It is pointed out that no
disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner till date
and that there was no complaint whatsoever against him. Challenging
Ext.P6, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 statutory appeal dated 7.6.2008, before
the District Educational Officer. Ext.P7 is pending disposal.
4. Notice before admission was ordered in the Writ Petition.
Notice was served on the respondents. The party respondents have not
entered appearance. Government Pleader appears for respondents 1
and 2.
W.P.(C) NO.18742 OF 2008
:: 3 ::
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since Ext.P7 appeal
is pending disposal, I am of the view that relief Nos.(i) to (iii) are not
maintainable at this stage. At the same time, the prayer No.(iv) is liable to
be granted.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:
a) The first respondent shall consider Ext.P7 appeal and dispose of
the same after affording an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner and respondents 3 and 4, at the earliest and, at any rate,
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
b) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified
copy of the judgment before the first respondent.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/