SAJEEV S. Vs. RT. REV. A.DHARMARAJ RASLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review petitions are filed by the additional respondent, who was not a party to the writ petitions, but sought and obtained impleadement as 6th and 5th respondent in the respective writ appeals. The writ appeals were filed by the Manager of the School, from a common judgment in two writ petitions; one filed by the Manager and the other by the Headmistress of a Secondary School of the Educational Agency. The review petitioner is a Higher Secondary School Teacher ['HSST' for brevity], who was appointed as the Principal-in-Charge in the Higher Secondary School. The Headmistress claimed that the vacancy arising in the post of Principal in the HS School has to be conceded to the Headmaster/Headmistresses [H.M] in the Secondary Schools as per Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules, which provides a ratio of 2:1 between HSSTs and HMs.

(2.) When the HSST, the review petitioner, was appointed as Principal-in-Charge without making a regular appointment, the HM approached the Director of Higher Secondary Education for consideration to the post of Principal. This Court had also in W.P(C) No.21788 of 2017 directed such consideration. The Joint Director directed appointment of the HM to the post of Principal. The Manager filed an appeal to the Government and the HSST filed a revision; both of which were pending before the Government. The HM filed a writ petition to implement the order of the Joint Director and the Manager filed a writ petition challenging Rule 4, which stipulates the 2:1 ratio. The learned Single Judge negatived the challenge against the ratio and directed implementation of the order of the Joint Director. The Manager filed appeals against both the said decisions.

(3.) By the common judgment under review, the challenge against the rule was rejected. As to the implementation of the order of the Joint Director, the Manager contended that there were other persons holding the post of HM in the Corporate Agency who are entitled to be considered even if the ratio is conceded to HMs. Only noticing such contention, this Court while disposing of the appeal from the directions issued to appoint the H.M; the Manager was directed to produce the seniority list as on the date of arising of vacancy of Principal, before the Government and if there are other eligible HMs, the Government was directed to ensure a proper selection to be conducted by the Manager or else the writ petitioner-HM; Sreelatha P.R., was directed to be appointed.