P.PRASANNA Vs. DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner states that she entered service as High School Assistant (HSA) at the Santhi Nikethan Higher Secondary School, Thiruvallur. Being duly qualified, she was promoted to the post of Headmistress with effect from 1/4/2020. While so, the vacancy to the post of Principal arose in the school with effect from 1/6/2021. The petitioner asserts that there being no qualified Higher Secondary School teacher (HSST) qualified for promotion, she is entitled to be appointed as Principal. However, overlooking the provisions of Chapter XXXII Rule 4(1) of the KER, the 4th respondent appointed the 5th respondent and the 3rd respondent proceeded to grant approval to the appointment as Teacher-in-Charge by Exhibit P1 order. Challenging Ext.P1 order, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent, and pursuant to orders issued by this Court, Exhibit P4 order was issued rejecting the challenge raised by the petitioner. While issuing Exhibit P4 order, the 1st respondent proceeded to hold that there is no post of HSST Malayalam in the Higher Secondary Sec. , and as the Principal has to take eight periods, a supernumerary post had to be created, which would entail additional financial burden to the Government. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Sri. R.K. Muralidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that Ext.P4 order issued by the 1st respondent cannot be sustained under law. According to the learned counsel, statutory rule prescribes that the appointment shall be either from HSST or from qualified Headmasters of aided schools under the same educational agency, and preference is to the HSSTs and Headmistress in the ratio 2:1. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner is eligible to be considered to be appointed as Principal especially since there are no qualified HSSTs available. The learned counsel contends that the eligibility of the petitioner under Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII cannot be frustrated merely for the reason that there are no posts available of HSST in the Higher Secondary Sec. . The learned counsel would then refer to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Thomas K.L v. State of Kerala and Others [2013 (4) KLT 257] to substantiate his contention. The learned counsel would urge that the law laid down in Thomas (supra) has been consistently followed by this Court and reliance is placed on the judgments rendered by the Division Bench in judgments dtd. 31/10/2019 in Writ Appeal No.957 of 2016, judgment dtd. 15/3/2021 in Writ Appeal No.2373 of 2019, judgment dtd. 6/4/2018 in Writ Appeal No.1597 of 2017 and by a learned Single Judge in Jayaraj V.P. and Another v State of Kerala and Others (2016 (2) KLT 200).

(3.) In response, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that Ext.P4 order was issued, taking note of the fact that there is no post of HSST(Malayalam) in the Higher Secondary Sec. of the School. In that view of the matter, as the Principal has to take eight periods, it would be necessary to create a supernumerary post. This would entail an additional financial burden to the Government. The learned Government Pleader would refer to the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dtd. 4/12/2018 in Writ Appeal No.2341 of 2018, and it is submitted that while upholding the findings of the learned Single Judge, it was held that the Government was right in rejecting approval to the appointment of the teacher concerned. According to the learned counsel, the observations made in Writ Appeal No.2341 of 2018 are more apt to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.