K. BHARGAVI Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a teacher-in-charge of Vatayam North Lower Primary School. One O. Raghavan who was the Headmaster of the School expired on 17th November 1989. The petitioner who was senior most teacher was appointed by the Manager as Headmistress by Ext. P-1 order dated 18th November 1989. The petitioner had not acquired the account test qualification which is a requisite qualification for appointment as Headmistress but the petitioner attained the age of 50 years on 28th October 1990. In the circumstances, the Assistant Educational Officer, the 2nd respondent herein approved the appointment of the petitioner as teacher-in-charge from 18th November 1989 to 27th October 1990 and as Headmistress from 28th October 1990. Ext. P-1 is the endorsement. Chapter XIV-A R.45-B sub-rule 4 lays down that teachers who attain the age of 50 years stand exempted permanently from acquiring the qualifications specified in sub-rule 1 of R.45-B Chapter XIV-A. It is the petitioner's, case that by virtue of this provision the petitioner was exempted permanently from test qualification on attaining the age of 50 years and therefore she could continue as Headmistress.

(2.) The 4th respondent is a teacher in the same school. He joined service as teacher on 5th June 1985. He appears to have submitted a representation before the 2nd respondent claiming that he is entitled to be appointed as Headmaster of the school. He acquired test qualification on 6th October 1990. Ext. R-4 (a) is the certificate. The 2nd respondent disposed of the representation made by the 4th respondent by proceedings Ext. P-2. It is stated therein that the claim of the 4th respondent was verified with test qualification certificate and other relevant records and the 2nd respondent was satisfied that the approval of appointment granted to the petitioner should be revised. The Manager, was directed to appoint the 4th respondent as Headmaster and submit appointment order for approval.

(3.) In this Original Petition, the petitioner challenges the order Ext. P-2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Ext. P-1 would show that the approval granted to the petitioner is to hold the post of teacher-in-charge from 18th November 1989 to 27th October 1990 and thereafter from 28th October 1990 as Headmistress, that was perfectly valid and that the order Ext. P-2 passed by the 2nd respondent revising the said order and directing to appoint the 4th respondent without giving an opportunity to the petitioner is illegal and opposed to all principles of natural justice.