SREEDHARAN P Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first of these writ petitions is filed challenging Exhibit P7 order of the District Education Officer rejecting approval of appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster of an aided High school on the ground that he did not have 12 years of continuous service as on the date of occurrence of vacancy. W.P.(C).No.4006/2019 is filed by a rival claimant, who had retired from service seeking approval of his appointment as Headmaster w.e.f. 1.5.2016.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents in W.P.(C).No.35914/2018.

(3.) The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35914/2018 was initially appointed as UPSA in the 4 th respondent's school on 21.7.1992. He was appointed as Headmaster w.e.f. 26.9.2016. Approval for the said appointment was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not have 12 years continuous service for appointment as Headmaster. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as HSA on 15.1.2001 in a long leave vacancy. The incumbent in whose leave vacancy the petitioner was appointed, submitted resignation on 1.10.2014. From the said date, the petitioner was appointed as permanent HSA. It is contended that 12 years graduate service as required under Rule 44 of Chapter XIVA KER can include service rendered in leave vacancy as well, if the same is continuous and without break. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government had considered the revision petition filed by the petitioner and had passed an order dated 28.1.2019 holding that the petitioner's continuous service from 15.1.2001 is liable to be considered as continuous service for promotion to the post of Headmaster. The DEO was, therefore, directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster with effect from the date of the appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vacancy of Headmaster arose on 1.5.2016. The petitioner being the senior-most qualified teacher was appointed against the post. The appointment was rejected only on the ground that the petitioner was not substantially holding the post of HSA from 2001. It is submitted that by Government Order dated 28.01.2019, the Government has accepted the claim of the petitioner with regard to continuous service from 15.1.2001 and that therefore the petitioner is liable for approval of appointment as Headmaster. However, in the meanwhile, the 5th respondent, who became qualified much later was appointed as Headmaster-in-charge and she was permitted to continue. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was qualified as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy, he is to be appointed as Headmaster and the appointment is to be approved.