EVANS SCHOOL Vs. USHA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Connected Writ Appeals, one filed by the Manager of the School and the other by the senior most teacher holding charge of the Head Mistress, pertain to the claim of another teacher in the very same school with higher qualifications for appointment to the post of Head Mistress.

(2.) We have heard learned Counsel appearing for Appellants in both the Writ Appeals and also the learned Government Pleader who took notice on admission and argued the matter for the Government and educational authorities. Parties and documents referred in this judgment are with reference to W.A. No. 321/2011, which is filed by the Manager of the School.

(3.) Appellant's School is a combined Upper Primary School and High School. A retirement vacancy of high school teacher arose in the school on 31.03.2006. Since the post had to be filled up with effect from 1.4.2006, the Appellant appointed the 1st Respondent on promotion from the U.P. school because she was holding the required educational qualifications, namely, Graduation with B. Ed degree to be appointed on promotion as high school teacher. When the Appellant issued letter of appointment to the 1st Respondent promoting her from the U.P. School to the High School as teacher, she wrote Ext.P2 letter requesting the Appellant to allow her to continue as UP school teacher until reopening of the School in the next academic year i.e., 2006-07. It is seen from Ext.P2 that the 1st Respondent has specifically pointed out to the Appellant that no appointment of teachers other than Head Masters could be made during vacation. Even though the relevant Rule is not stated by her in Ext.P2, both sides brought to our notice Rule 7A(2) of Chap.XIV A of the Kerala Educational Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) as the Rule prohibiting appointment of teachers during vacation. Even though the Head Master of the U.P. School also retired from the Appellant's School on 30.4.2006 leaving vacancy of the Head Master to be filled up with effect from 1.5.2006, the Appellant instead of considering the 1st Respondent for promotion to the post of Head Mistress, appointed the 7th Respondent who was the senior most teacher of the School as the Head Mistress. In this context, it is to be pointed out that by virtue of the Graduation and B. Ed. degree the 1st Respondent has, she has preference in appointment as Head Mistress in the U.P. School by virtue of Rule 45 of Chap. XIVA of the Rules. The appointment of the 7th Respondent by the Appellant as Head Mistress of the U.P. school in preference to the 1st Respondent was questioned by her before the Assistant Educational Officer, who declined to approve the 7th Respondent's appointment by the Appellant as Head Mistress. Even though the Appellant was successful in revision filed before the Director of Public Instructions, the Government on further revision reversed the order of the D.P.I, vide Ext.P20 upholding the claim of the 1st Respondent with direction to the Appellant to appoint the 1st Respondent, who has B.A & B. Ed Degrees, as Head Mistress of the UP School by virtue of the provision contained in Rule 45 of Chap.XIVA of the Rules above stated. It is against this order of the Government, the Appellant and the 7th Respondent filed Writ Petitions before this Court. The learned Single Judge however upheld the Government's order and dismissed the Writ Petitions against which these Writ Appeals are filed.