BHASKARAN UNNITHAN Vs. SARASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by Bhaskaran Unnithan challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. no. 4759 of 1987 presented by Smt. Sarasamma. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may now be noted. Under the same educational agency there is an Upper Primary School at Vellimon as also a High School. The High School which was unaided was converted as an aided High School in the year 1976-77. On that date, the first respondent, Sarasamma, was the Headmastress of the Upper Primary School. The post of Headmaster of the High School was required to be filled up. On Sri Balappan Pillai was appointed as the Headmaster of the High School on the 9th of August, 1976. That appointment was duly approved by the educational authorities. After serving as a Headmaster for nearly ten years, he retired from service on 31-3-1986. Hence once again the post of Headmaster became vacant and steps were required to be taken for filling up the same. The appellant was immediately appointed as Teacher-in-charge of the Headmaster on 1-4-1986. The District Educational Officer however directed that the post of Headmaster of the High School should be filled up on a regular basis. The Manager then appointed the appellant as Headmaster on a regular basis on the 2nd of June, 1986. When approval of the said action was sought, the District Educational Officer by order dated 22-8-1986 declined approval on the ground that respondent No. 1 had a preferential claim for appointment. A further appeal to the Deputy Director of Education was dismissed by Ext. P3 dated 11th December, 1986. The matter was then taken up in revision to the State Government. The State Government by its order Ext. P5 dated 3rd June 1987 allowed the appeal and directed the approval of the appointment of the appellant. It is the said decision of the State Government that was challenged by Sarasamma in O.P. No. 4759 of 1987. The learned single Judge has allowed the said writ petition and quashed the order of the State Government. The learned single Judge has held that the State Government has committed an obvious error in holding that respondent No. 1 had permanently relinquished her claim to the post of Headmaster and that therefore she had no right to compete for the said post. It is the said decision of the learned single Judge that is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) An attempt was made before us to persuade us to take the view that the first respondent had relinquished permanently her right to the post of Headmaster, relying on her statement Ext. P4 dated 5-8-1976. We find it difficult to accede to that contention. Ext. P4 is the letter addressed by the first respondent to the District Educational Officer wherein she has stated that she has put in 13 years of graduate service and has acquired test qualifications. She has further stated that she has made an application on 31-7-1976 to the Manager requesting for her being posted as High School Assistant in the High School, Vellimon. She has further stated that the Manager has not yet considered her request. It is in this background that she requested for necessary directions being issued to the Manager to appoint her as High School Assistant (Senior) in the newly sanctioned Vellimon High School. There is not even a remote suggestion about any relinquishment of her right to claim the post of Headmaster.

(3.) Note to R.44(1) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, hereinafter referred to K.E.R, says that "whenever the Manager intends to appoint a person as Headmaster other than the senior claimant, the Manager shall obtain a written consent from such senior claimant, renouncing his claim permanently". It further says that "such consent shall have the approval of the Educational Officer concerned". In this case, there is no written consent given by the first respondent renouncing her claim permanently for the post of Headmaster. It is also nobody's case that any such offer or consent renouncing her claim by the first respondent had the approval of the educational officer concerned. We have therefore no hesitation in repelling the contention that the first respondent has renounced her right in accordance with the Note to R.44 (1) of Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R, relinquishing her claim permanently to the post of Headmaster in the High School.