PARUKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in W. A. Nos. 1324 & 1339 of 1997 was a High School Assistant and the management promoted her as Headmistress as on 1.4.1995. Even though that appointment was approved by the educational authorities, on revision it was set aside by the Government on the ground that on 1.4.1995 when the vacancy arose the appellant was not qualified as she had no graduate service of 12 years. R.44A of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules provides as follows:

(2.) Even though the validity of the rule was not challenged in the Original Petition, an additional ground was taken in the Original Petition challenging the validity of R.44A as it is discriminatory and arbitrary mainly on the ground that special rules for the Government teachers only prescribes grade service and not graduate service of 12 years for becoming a Headmaster. It is the case of the appellant that functions of Headmasters of aided schools and Government schools are the same and there is no basis for discrimination. It is further contended that no object is going to be achieved by prescribing graduate service of 12 years for becoming a Headmaster. Teaching service of 12 years with graduation alone need be considered and hence provision regarding graduate service is arbitrary. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the service of Government teachers as well as the service of private school teachers under K.E.R. are different and they are two different classes of persons even though function of teaching may be similar. It is submitted further that Government School teachers are appointed through Public Service Commission through its selection process after considering large number of persons, whereas appointing authority for private school teachers is the manager himself. Disciplinary authority is also the manager. Government school teachers are also liable to be transferred to different places and therefore, their service cannot be equated with private school teachers. It is submitted that by way of erratum notification amendments were made making it compulsory that requisite service should be graduate service for considering promotion as a Headmaster in Government service also. The erratum notification was published in 10.2.83 itself amending the special rules for the Government teachers making it compulsory that 12 years continuous graduate service is necessary for becoming Headmaster there also. When that erratum notification was challenged, C. S. Rajan, J. in O. P. No. 665/99 upheld the erratum notification and also held that originally it was not included in the special rules by mistake and by erratum notification it is corrected. Therefore, in effect there is no discrimination and violation of Art.14. On that ground also R.44A cannot be challenged. Service after attaining prescribed qualification is different from unqualified service and in any event power of the rule making authority is not challenged and it cannot be stated that R.44A providing 12 years of graduate service for becoming a Headmaster who has pivotal position in the administration and running the school is arbitrary. Therefore, we hold that R.44A is valid.

(3.) With regard to W. A. No. 1442/97 filed by the management, it is submitted by the management that the first respondent was punished after conducting enquiry for some lapses during the supervision of annual examination. As a punishment she was debarred from becoming a Headmistress. That punishment was upheld by the D.E.O. and D.P.I. However on a third appeal D.P.I. has interfered with the same and there is no provision for third appeal. Against the order of the D.P.I. no separate Writ Petition was filed by the management. Manager has filed a revision application against that order and that revision application is pending. If the above revision application is not disposed of, it may be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since both contesting teachers have attained the age of superannuation, monetary benefits payable etc. may be decided immediately after the disposal of revision petition by the authorities according to law.