IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12687 of 2010(I)
1. MARY KIND, AGED 54,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. ANNA.K.P, HEADMISTRESS,
4. P.C.JOSE, HEADMASTER,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.G.BASIL
For Respondent :SRI.P.GEORGE WILLIAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :21/10/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 12687 OF 2010 I
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is working as H.S.A.(Physical Science) in
St.Rita’s High School, Ponnurunni under the corporate management
of the first respondent. According to the petitioner, she is the next
eligible teacher to be appointed as Headmistress in any of the
schools under the corporate management of the first respondent.
However, respondents 3 and 4 were appointed as Headmistress of
St.Mary’s High School, Vallarpadam and Headmaster of St.Joseph’s
High School, Chathiath respectively.
2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:
“(i) To declare that the petitioner is the next eligible
teacher to be promoted as HM in the 1st
respondent’s school run by the educational
agency before effecting promotion to 3rd and 4th
respondents.
W.P.(C) NO.12687 OF 2010
:: 2 ::
(ii) To declare that the action of the 1st respondent in
promoting 3rd and 4th respondents is unjust, unfair,
illegal and void ab initio.
(iii) Restrain the 3rd and 4th respondents in
discharging their public duty as HM of the 1st
respondent’s respective schools run by the
educational agency.
(iv) The 2nd respondent may be directed not to
approve the promotion of 3rd and 4th respondents.
(v) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be
promoted as HM of any of the schools of 1st
respondent educational agency forthwith.
(vi) Such other relief as deem fit necessary in the
interest of justice to the petitioner.”
3. According to the petitioner, she is senior to respondents 3
and 4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the fourth
respondent, the fourth respondent is senior to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the schools
under the corporate management of the first respondent have
minority status and therefore, the Manager need not appoint the
W.P.(C) NO.12687 OF 2010
:: 3 ::
senior most teacher as the Headmaster. It is sufficient if a fair
selection procedure is adopted and eligible persons are appointed as
Headmaster. The learned senior counsel appearing for the first
respondent submitted that such a procedure was followed and
qualified persons (respondents 3 and 4) were appointed as
Headmasters.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent
also raised an objection that there is an effective alternative remedy
for the petitioner to file an appeal under Rule 44 of Chapter XIV A of
the Kerala Education Rules and therefore, the Writ Petition is not
maintainable.
5. Rule 44 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules
provides that a teacher aggrieved by the appointment of a
Headmaster shall have the right of appeal to the Department. In the
present case, the District Educational Officer, Ernakulam is the
authority to approve the appointment of Headmasters. The proposal
for approval of appointment of respondents 3 and 4 would be
forwarded to the District Educational Officer and he has to consider
W.P.(C) NO.12687 OF 2010
:: 4 ::
the question of approval of appointment of respondents 3 and 4. In
that process, he is bound to consider the appeal filed by the
petitioner under Rule 44 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education
Rules.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that
even assuming that the minority status of the institution under the
first respondent is accepted, it has to be shown before the
educational officer that a fair process of selection was adhered to by
the management in the matter of appointment of respondents 3 and
4. This is a matter to be looked into by the District Educational
Officer.
7. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the
appointment of respondents 3 and 4 have not been approved and
the approval was declined by the District Educational Officer on the
ground that the minority status of the educational institution was not
established by producing relevant documents.
8. If the District Educational Officer has already declined
W.P.(C) NO.12687 OF 2010
:: 5 ::
approval of the appointment of respondents 3 and 4, nothing
survives in this Writ Petition. However, the petitioner would be
entitled to file a formal appeal under Rule 44 of Chapter XIV A of the
Kerala Education Rules before the District Educational Officer. No
further directions are necessary in the Writ Petition.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed with the above
observations.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/