IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 3325 of 2003(U)
1. M.RADHAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KONDOTTY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.MOHANAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :12/11/2007
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
=======================
O.P. No. 3325 of 2003 (U)
=======================
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Headmaster in a UP School. He is
challenging Exts.P2, P5, P6 and P8 orders wherein the petitioner’s
claim for Scale of Pay of Headmaster with effect from 11.10.84
was rejected.
2. The petitioner started service as UP School Assistant
with effect from 8.12.1980. The post of Headmaster of the
School fell vacant on 11.10.84. The petitioner was appointed on
11.10.84 as Headmaster on probation as there were no other
qualified hands in the School eligible for promotion as
Headmaster. The petitioner completed 5 years of service as a
Graduate Teacher and he was appointed as Graduate Headmaster
on 8.1.86. Scale of pay was sanctioned, which was later objected
to on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 15 years
of service and the excess amount paid as salary was refunded.
O.P. No. 3325/2003 -2-
By order dated 1.12.89 the petitioner was reverted as teacher-
in-charge with effect from 8.5.87 for want of test qualification.
The same was also endorsed in his service book. There was an
order granting exemption from test qualification which was in
force in 1988. That exemption was annulled by a Division Bench
of this Court in Pankajakshi and ors. v. George (1987 (2)
KLT Page 723). The appeal filed by the Headmaster before the
Supreme Court was dismissed with the following observation.
“We, however direct the State Government
not to revert those Headmasters who have not
passed the Account Examination yet and who are
now holding the post of Headmaster only they get
one more chance to appear at the Accounts
Examination to be held by the Kerala
Administration.”
3. Subsequently by Order dated 8.5.87 the Government
directed that all teachers promoted as Headmasters be reverted.
However the petitioner was not reverted. In May 1989, the
petitioner passed account test. Subsequently, he was promoted
as Graduate Headmaster on 1.1.90, which was approved. He
completed 15 years of service on 1.6.96 and he was granted
scale of pay of Headmaster from 1.6.96. The petitioner
O.P. No. 3325/2003 -3-
thereafter claimed scale of pay of Headmaster with effect from
11.10.84, on which date the petitioner was earlier promoted as
Headmaster. This was rejected by Ext. P2 order holding that the
benefit is available only to those Headmasters who were still
holding the post of Headmaster prior to 15.9.1988. Petitioner’s
appeal was rejected by Ext. P5 as well as Exts. P6 and P8. It is in
the above circumstances, that petitioner has approached this
Court, seeking the following reliefs:
“i) To call for the records leading to Exhibits P-2, P-5, P-6
and P-8 and set aside the same by issuing a Writ of
Certiorari or other appropriate writ.
ii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the scale
of pay attached to the post of Headmaster of the
Primary School fixed with effect from 11.10.1984.”
3. I heard the learned Govt. Pleader also. Now it is not
disputed before me that the petitioner would be entitled to claim
Headmaster’s scale of pay with effect from 11.10.84, only if the
petitioner was validly holding the post of Headmaster
immediately prior to 15.9.88. Admittedly by order dated 1.12.89
the petitioner was reverted as teacher-in-charge with effect from
O.P. No. 3325/2003 -4-
8.5.87. Therefore, the petitioner ceased to be a Headmaster
from 8.5.87 onwards. That being so, the petitioner would not be
entitled to claim headmaster’s scale of pay on the ground that
the petitioner was holding the post of headmaster immediately
prior to 15.9.88 and in accordance with the Supreme Court
Judgment he had passed the account test. The petitioner relies
on certain Govt. Orders in respect of similarly placed
Headmasters. But I find that in all those cases those
Headmasters had successfully challenged their reversion as
teacher-in-charge, which the petitioner did not. The petitioner
contends that he had passed account test and was subsequently
promoted as Headmaster with effect from 1.9.96 and therefore it
was not necessary for the petitioner to challenge the earlier
order of reversion. I do not agree. If the petitioner wants to get
the benefits on the ground that petitioner was continuing as a
Headmaster immediately prior to 15.9.88 the petitioner should
show that he had successfully challenged the order dated
1.12.89, by which he was reverted as teacher-in-charge with
effect from 8.5.87. Admittedly petitioner did not challenge that
order at all. Therefore, his prior service as Headmaster based
O.P. No. 3325/2003 -5-
on the promotion on 11.10.84 becomes obliterated and he ceases
to derive any benefits therefrom.
4. Of course the petitioner would try to contend that in
view of the explanation to Rule 49 of Chapter XIV A of KER the
word “Headmaster” includes teacher-in-charge and therefore
even teacher-in-charge is entitled to the benefit available to
headmaster. This also I am unable to countenance. Rule 49
specifically says that the word ‘Headmaster’ includes teacher-in-
charge also for the purpose of that rule. That would necessarily
mean that for other purposes the word “Headmaster” cannot
include teacher-in-charge unless the same is so expressly made
clear in the other rules. In the absence of any provision in the
KER to the effect that for the present purpose the term
Headmaster would include teacher-in-charge, the petitioner who
is only a teacher-in-charge cannot claim the benefit applicable to
a headmaster.
5. The result of the above discussion is that the order
dated 1.12.89 reverting the petitioner as teacher-in-charge with
O.P. No. 3325/2003 -6-
effect from 8.5.87 stands and hence, the petitioner loses his
right to claim Headmaster’s scale of pay on the basis of his
earlier promotion as Headmaster. In the above circumstances,
the writ petition is without merit and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.SIRI JAGAN,
JUDGE
jp