THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals are filed by a Higher Secondary School Teacher, who failed to get appointment as a Principal in the Higher Secondary School under the respondent-Corporate Management. Lalamma Varghese, the 6th respondent in W.A. No. 2203 of 2012, who was a Headmistress in one of the High Schools under the Corporate Management, was preferred over the Higher Secondary School Teachers by the Manager; which preference was not approved by the educational authority. The rival claimants, viz., the appellant and the 6th respondent, were before the learned Single Judge in two different Writ Petitions; the former asserting his right to be appointed as Principal and the latter assailing the refusal of the educational authority to grant approval for her appointment. Both the Writ Petitions were considered together and a common judgment was passed, upholding the right of the 6th respondent to be appointed as Principal of the Higher Secondary School, which judgment is impugned in the above appeals. The appellant undisputedly has the qualification to be appointed as Principal in the Higher Secondary School as is provided under Rule 4, Method of Appointment, of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 ("K.E.R." for short). The 6th respondent, at the time of her consideration to the post of Principal, was serving as a Headmistress in one of the High Schools under the Corporate Management. The 6th respondent has a graduation and B.Ed. in Physical Science and a post graduation in English. Though there was a contention with respect to the approval of her post graduation from Annamalai University, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. V. Philip Mathews fairly submits that the same may not survive for consideration in the appeals. The learned counsel, however, stresses on the fact that the 6th respondent is not entitled to be appointed as Principal of the Higher Secondary School for reason of her not being qualified to hold the post of a Higher Secondary School Teacher. Sri. Philip Mathews would assert that going by R.6 of Chapter XXXII K.E.R., the qualification for a Higher Secondary School Teacher is a Master's Degree and B.Ed. in the concerned subject and the 6th respondent's B.Ed. being in Physical Science and post graduation in English language; the 6th respondent would not be entitled to be considered for the post of Principal.

(2.) Over and above the aforementioned contention, the learned counsel would also point out the gross illegality in the procedure adopted by the Corporate Management. It was urged that though the Corporate Management, being a minority institution, has the authority to appoint a person of its own choice, the same has to be done in accordance with a proper procedure and it is trite that no unqualified person can be thrust upon a school in the guise of exercising minority rights. In the instant case, while the post of Principal was notified for selection from amongst the Higher Secondary School Teachers, the interview scheduled was postponed for reasons best known to the management and in the interregnum applications were received from Headmasters of High Schools. The interview was proceeded with and 6th respondent, a Headmistress, who had not even applied as per the initial notification and who lack the qualification to be posted as a Higher Secondary School Teacher, was appointed in the vacancy. The said grounds were projected as being sufficient to warrant interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents Sri. Bechu Kurian Thomas and Sri. K.R. Ganesh. Per contra, the respondents urge that the reason why the Headmasters were also included in the zone of consideration was due to the fact that Note (iii) of Sl. No. I of the Table under R.4 of Chapter XXXII KER stipulated that the post of Principal in Higher Secondary Schools shall be filled in the ratio of 2:1 by promotion from Higher Secondary School Teachers and by transfer from qualified Headmasters of Aided High Schools. The two earlier incumbents in the post of Principal of the Higher Secondary School having been those promoted from the post of Higher Secondary School Teachers, the present vacancy was, as per the ratio, due to the Headmasters of the High Schools. The notification calling for applications from Higher Secondary School Teachers was issued on a mistake and on noticing the mandate under Rule 4, the zone of consideration was extended to include the Headmasters of High Schools only to comply with the statutory prescription. It is contended that the selection was proceeded with, interviewing both the Higher Secondary School Teachers and the Headmasters of High Schools; only since, if there were no qualified Headmasters, then a Higher Secondary School Teacher could be appointed. The respondents assert that the slight change in procedure does not at all amount to any illegality and at worst it will only be an irregularity which caused prejudice to none. It is also pointed out by Sri. Bechu Kurian Thomas that the qualification of a Principal by promotion or by transfer are different and the subtle distinction is easily decipherable from the words employed in the Table under R.6 of Chapter XXXII KER.