IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 9609 of 2007(R)
1. V.K.P.BRINDA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
For Respondent :SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :30/10/2007
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN,J
======================
W.P.(C).No.9609 of 2007
=============-===========
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Higher Secondary School Teacher in
Navamukunda Higher Secondary School, Thirunavaya,
Malappuram District. She is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order by which
she has been rendered supernumerary on the second respondent
being appointed as Headmaster/Principal of the School. The
situation arose on the following factual scenario. By the decision
of this Court and the Supreme Court, qualified Headmasters
holding the post of Principal was directed to be allowed to
continue as Principal of Higher Secondary Schools. The second
respondent was the Headmaster who was holding charge of
Principal also of the School. This Court held that the post of
Principal would be deemed to have arisen immediately on
promulgation of the special rules which stipulated that there
shall be a Principal in all Higher Secondary Schools. In tune
with the said decision, the Government issued an order creating
1225 posts of principals in the 1225 Higher Secondary Schools
in the State. In that order the Government stipulated that the
W.P.(C).No.9609/2007
2
post of Principal would be created by converting one post of
Higher Secondary School Teacher so that the total number of
Higher Secondary School Teachers would be the same even after
appointing the Principal. In order to accommodate Headmasters
of High Schools as Principal of the Higher Secondary School also
the Government issued Ext.P5 order in which it was stipulated
that qualified Headmasters who are promoted as Principal will
have to teach 16 periods. When a Headmaster is expected to
teach 16 periods naturally the number of periods available for
Higher Secondary School Teacher would be reduced. Under the
above circumstances, in Ext.P5 the Government held as follows:
i) “for the creation of supernumerary posts of Higher Secondary
School Teacher (Jr.) to accommodate the Junior most Higher
Secondary School Teacher (Jr.), who will be thrown out due to
shortage of teaching periods consequent on a Headmaster
turned Principal takes charges and handles 16 hours teaching
periods.
ii)Exemption to Principals from teaching in cases where the
Higher Secondary Section does not have the subject of the
Headmaster turned Principal for teaching.”
2. When the second respondent was appointed as
Principal of the Higher Secondary School pursuant to Ext.P5 by
Ext.P6 order the petitioner was retained in a supernumerary
W.P.(C).No.9609/2007
3
post created for the purpose of complying with the conditions in
Ext.P5. Petitioner is aggrieved by her being termed as
supernumerary. The apprehension of the petitioner is that by
terming her as supernumerary, she would be deprived of service
benefits in future.
3. The contentions of the petitioner are two fold. First is
that Ext.P5 only contemplates a supernumerary post of Higher
Secondary School Teacher(Junior) alone and not that of Higher
Secondary School Teacher. The Petitioner being a Higher
Secondary School Teacher, by implementing Ext.P5 the
petitioner cannot be termed as supernumerary, since Ext.P5
speaks only about Higher Secondary Teacher (Junior). The
second is that as per Ext.P5, qualified Headmasters who are
promoted as Principals will have to teach 16 periods. In the
present case the second respondent has not taught students
even for a single period during his tenure and therefore the
petitioner herself was teaching or taking classes for the entire
periods allowed to English, which is a subject of both the
petitioner as well as the Principal. Therefore the petitioner
cannot be termed as supernumerary at all, because she was
W.P.(C).No.9609/2007
4
occupying the post depending on the number of periods allowed
to English which periods she alone was teaching.
4. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is
that although Ext.P5 speaks of Higher Secondary School Teacher
(Junior) what was contemplated by Ext.P5 is only that the Junior
most among the Higher Secondary School Teachers available,
whether Higher Secondary School Teacher or Higher Secondary
School Teacher(Junior), would be rendered supernumerary. As
far as the number of periods are concerned, according to the
learned Government Pleader it does not make any difference
because as per the Government Order the post of Principal has
been created by converting one post and Higher Secondary
School Teacher and therefore once the Headmaster is appointed
as Principal also there would naturally be a reduction in the post
of Higher Secondary School Teacher as a result of which one
teacher has to be rendered supernumerary which alone has been
done by Exts.P5 and P6.
5. I have considered the rival contentions.
6. According to me although Ext.P5 is intended to save a
difficult situation that may arise on Headmasters being promoted
W.P.(C).No.9609/2007
5
as Principals, it actually creates more problems than it seeks to
solve. The first is that the same speaks only about a Higher
Secondary School Teacher (Junior) being rendered
supernumerary. Second is that when the Full Bench of this
Court held that the post of Principal would stand created on
promulgation of the special rules, it cannot be held that the post
of Principal came in to being only on the Government issuing the
Government Order creating 1225 post of Principals. The number
of Higher Secondary School Teachers have been fixed and
appointed on the basis of the total number of periods available
for each subject. Therefore, there are already the stipulated
number of Higher Secondary School Teachers in the school.
The post of Principal is in addition to that, since the post of
Principal come into being immediately on coming into force of
the special rules. Therefore, normally there need not be any
conversion of post of Higher Secondary School Teacher into that
of Principal. But the Government insists that the post of
Principal came into being only when the Government order
creating the posts came into force, which specifically stipulated
that the post of Principal would be created by converting one
W.P.(C).No.9609/2007
6
post of Higher Secondary School Teacher to accommodate the
Principal. These are all some of the problems thrown up by
Ext.P5 order.
7. However, I do not think that it is necessary to decide
that issue now. Admittedly, the second respondent has retired
from service as a result of which the petitioner ceased to be
supernumerary, going by Exts.P5 and P6 themselves. The
petitioner has no case that she has been deprived of any
monetary benefits on account of her being termed as
supernumerary. The petitioner’s apprehension is that in future
she may be deprived of service benefits for the period during
which she was termed as numerary. If it is declared that the
petitioner would not be deprived of any service benefits,
whatsoever, because of her being termed as supernumerary for
the period when the second respondent was holding the post of
Principal, the petitioner’s fears can be allayed. Accordingly, in
view of the fact that the Government has not denied the specific
averments of the petitioner that the second respondent has not
taught even a single period as principal and the petitioner was
in fact taking classes for the entire periods available for English,
W.P.(C).No.9609/2007
7
I declare that simply because of the fact that the petitioner has
been termed as supernumerary during the period when the
second respondent held the post of Principal to satisfy the
conditions in Ext.P5 she would not be deprived of any service
benefits whatsoever presently or in future.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
dvs