IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16287 of 2010(I)
1. SHEELA PAUL, W/O.CYRIL M.V.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER OF CATHOLIC
4. SRI.JOHN.J., H.S.A.,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :01/07/2010
O R D E R
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 16287 of 2010 I
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is presently working as High School
Assistant(Physical Science) in S.V.H.S., Cheriyanad. The post of
Headmaster in the said school became vacant on 01-04-2010
consequent to the retirement of one Smt.Marykutty on 31-03-2010.
Thereupon, the third respondent issued Ext.P1 order appointing
the fourth respondent as teacher in charge. The contention of the
petitioner is that Ext.P1 is unsustainable as it was passed without
considering the legitimate claim of the petitioner for promotion as
Headmaster of the said school. It is the further contention of the
petitioner that the fourth respondent is ineligible to be considered
for appointment as Headmaster of the school as on 01-04-2010
and at the same time, she is fully qualified for the said post.
According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent did not have 12
years of continuous service, which is one of the qualifications for
appointment to the post of Headmaster. Raising such
contentions, the petitioner has approached the second respondent
through Ext.P4. Since Ext.P4 was not taken up for consideration,
WPC.16287/2010
: 2 :
she has filed Ext.P5 representation before the first respondent
requesting to consider her claim for promotion as Headmaster.
Despite the receipt of Exts.P4 and P5, no action has so far been
taken thereon. The grievance of the petitioner is that the
respondents are threatening to transfer her with a view to make
her to withdraw Exts.P4 and P5. The petitioner, therefore,
apprehends an imminent transfer. It is in these circumstances that
this writ petition has been filed.
2. Indisputably, the post of Headmaster in the school
belonging to the third respondent became vacant on 01-04-2010.
Necessarily, the claims of eligible High School Assistants are to be
considered with reference to the qualifications of the claimants on
the date of occurrence of vacancy. Evidently, the fourth
respondent was appointed not as Headmaster but only as a
teacher in charge as per Ext.P1.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first
respondent in this writ petition. It is stated therein that Rule 44A of
Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules stipulates, subject to
the provisions contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 44, the
WPC.16287/2010
: 3 :
qualifications for appointment to the post of Headmaster. 12 years
continuing graduate service with a pass in a test in the Kerala
Education Rules and pass in Account test conducted by the Public
Service Commission are the qualifications for such an
appointment, it is stated therein. At the same time, in the
statement, it is stated that the qualifications claimed to have been
acquired by the petitioner have not been incorporated in her
service book. The petitioner has submitted reply to the aforesaid
statement. It is stated therein that on 18-06-2010 all the
qualifications acquired by the petitioner have been duly
incorporated in her service book. That apart, Exts.P6, P7 and P8
would reveal that the petitioner possess the prescribed
qualifications. In the said circumstances and also in view of the
specific statement with respect to the qualifications made in the
statement filed by the first respondent, I am of the view that the
second respondent has to consider Ext.P4, expeditiously. With
respect to the grievance relating transfer, it is only an
apprehension.
In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a
WPC.16287/2010
: 4 :
direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on
Ext.P4, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with notice to
the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4.
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks