C.K. SRIDHAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Head Master in MES SSR Demonstration High School, Chikkamagalur on temporary basis in June 1993, which is a school run by the fourth respondent--Society. In the year 1997, the Society had issued a notification for appointment of Head Master and a committee was constituted for the purpose of appointment and it is that committee which had appointed the petitioner as Head Master and issued the appointment order dated 27/6/1997. He was on probation for two years and his appointment was confirmed by a notification dated 20/9/1999. The grant-in-aid was extended to all Kannada Schools by the first respondent which was commenced prior to the year 1993 and amongst others, MES SSR Demonstration High School was listed for grant-in-aid. The committee which addressed the eligibility of the school for grant-in-aid, recommended the case of the petitioner to be continued as Head Master and also stated that continuation of the petitioner as Head Master would not be contrary to the 100 point roster programme. The first respondent, at the time of approving the grant-in-aid in favour of the School, followed the standard staffing pattern for High School under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, and that in terms of the Government Order dated 6/10/2009 which stated that grant-in-aid could be considered only after furnishing the details of the entire staff as standard staffing pattern for High School under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The petitioner claims that the fourth respondent, while submitting the proposal, indicated that the petitioner was the Head Master of the school and the staff strength was as per the standard staffing pattern and at the time of grant-in-aid, the committee's inspection had also indicated that the petitioner was eligible to be continued as the Head Master. It is the petitioner's further case that the second respondent by official memorandum dated 8/12/2008, approved the grant in favour of the school without pay. The petitioner's designation in the memorandum was indicated as 'Assistant Teacher' instead of 'Head Master'. The first respondent thereafter issued the grant-in-aid in favour of the school and indicated the designation of the petitioner as 'Assistant Teacher (Arts)' instead of Head Master and approved the grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher instead of Head Master, vide Government Order dated 27/2/2009. The fourth respondent thereafter issued an official memorandum on 5/3/2009 advising release of pay in favour of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher. The petitioner's contention is that he has been discharging the duties of Head Master and the fourth respondent vide letter dated 11/3/2009 intimated the Block Education Officer that the petitioner was in fact discharging the duties of Head Master and sought for release of pay in his favour accordingly. It is this which is the controversy. The petitioner claims that in terms of the Government Order dated 6/10/2007 at the time of approving grant-in-aid, the first respondent ought to have considered the fact that the entire staff strength was available and the fourth respondent, in its proposal, had clearly indicated that the petitioner was the Head Master of the school and also had reiterated that the other staff strength was available and the first respondent, while approving the grant-in-aid, was on the footing that the full staff strength was available, including the post of Head Master, and however, it is the complaint of the petitioner that the first respondent, in respect of the school, even though it was evident that the petitioner was the Head Master, his designation has been shown as Assistant Teacher. It is this which is sought to be contended as being illegal and depriving valuable right of the petitioner to be considered as the Head Master and to be paid accordingly.

(2.) The respondents have filed statement of objections and the learned Government Advocate would contend that there is no irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order extending the grant-in-aid to the school. The appointment of the petitioner as the Head Master, is contrary to the Act and Rules and that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It is pointed out that on an application filed by the Malnad Education Society, Chikkamagalur, seeking permission to start the High School at Jyothinagar, the Government, during the academic year 1994-95, granted permission to start the High School in the name and style 'MES SSR Demonstration High School' at Chikkamagalur, with certain conditions. In view of the policy of the Government extending grant-in-aid to the educational institutions established prior to the academic year 1994-95, grant-in-aid extended was in terms of the Government Order at Annexure-H dated 27/2/2009. The competent authority had thereafter extended the grant-in-aid to the seven teaching and one non-teaching staff working in said institution subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner was treated as an in-charge Head Master of the school and permitted to counter sign the salary bill of the teaching and non-teaching staff working in the said institution. Under Karnataka Educational Institution (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institution) Rules 1999, for filling up the post of Head Master, the eligible teacher must be a trained Secondary School Assistant and must have put in not less than five years of approved teaching service in the Secondary School. Further if the management is running more than one school, common seniority basis on the date of approval of appointment of the teacher with aid shall be prepared and notified. The senior most teacher is one who is eligible to be appointed as the Head Master. The promotion to the post of Head Master or Head Mistress shall be made on the basis of the seniority of the teacher, which shall be determined by counting total number of years of continuous service from the date of entry into the cadre of Secondary School Assistant Grade-1. The seniority is counted from the date of approval, for grant-in-aid. In the instant case, the appointment of the petitioner was approved with aid by the competent authority on 8/12/2008 without grant. Subsequently, the school in which the petitioner was working was brought under grant-in-aid on 27/2/2009. Therefore the seniority would be from the date of approval of service which is to be taken into consideration. The Society under which the school functions, runs four institutions including the present school which has come under grant-in-aid in the year 2009 and the other schools run by the same Society were provided grant-in-aid much prior to 2009. The seniority of the teachers would be considered only after the schools are admitted to grant-in-aid and not from the date of appointment. The petitioner is therefore found to be junior to the other teachers who are already working in other three institutions, run by the very Society. In terms of the Education Act, if the management is running more than one institution, the management is required to prepare a common seniority list of all the schools and in the seniority list, the senior most teacher is eligible to be appointed as a Head Master and further for the appointment of a Head Master, the teacher must have put in five years of approved teaching service in a Secondary School. It is found that the petitioner has not put in five years of approved teaching service in a Secondary School, though it is vehemently disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who would interject to say that he has been teaching in Secondary School from the year 1993, no doubt as temporary Head Master, but he has a teaching experience.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate would however insist that he cannot be appointed as the Head Master and further he is junior to a large number of other teachers working in other three aided institutions and as per the seniority list which is now prepared and filed, indicates that the petitioner is at Sl. No. 9 in the order of seniority and hence it is contended that the petitioner's appointment as Head Master by the fourth respondent, was contrary to the Act and Rules and as per the grant-in-aid norms, the seniority should be considered only following the seniority and reservation norms considering all the teachers who are working in all three institutions. The respondents not having granted any permission or approval either to the management or to the petitioner, it cannot be claimed by the petitioner that he has been working since his appointment as a teacher in a Secondary School and therefore claim that he has the requisite experience. In the above background, as pointed by the learned Government Advocate, if the combined seniority list is taken into account, the petitioner does not have the seniority, even though the petitioner may claim that he has the requisite experience and the contention that he does not have five years teaching experience, being incorrect, it would still not enable the petitioner to claim a right to appointment as Head Master, as the appointment would have to be strictly in accordance with the order of seniority and the petitioner does not have the seniority. Consequently there is no illegality in the impugned order and the petition is dismissed.