K P SETHUMADHAVAN Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PALGHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that is raised in this appeal is a very limited one and as we understand it, the question is only whether the educational authorities have power under the Kerala Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder to direct the Manager of an aided school to appoint a particular teacher as the Headmaster. The Assistant Educational Officer by Exts. P2 and P3 orders produced along with the Original Petition directed that the 3rd respondent in the Original Petition who is also the 3rd respondent in this appeal should be appointed as the Headmaster of the school of which the appellant is the Manager who is also a teacher there. The appellant questioned the orders Exts. P2 and P3 by way of appeal before the District Educational Officer, the 1st respondent herein, but the appeal was dismissed by Ext. P4 order.

(2.) Justice Viswanatha Iyer dismissed the Original Petition challenging the orders Exts. P2, P3 and P4 mainly on the ground that the appellant being the Manager of the school is precluded from functioning as the Headmaster in view of R.8 of Chap.3 of the Kerala Education Rules. The appellant being thus eliminated the 3rd respondent who was directed to be appointed was held to be the proper person to be appointed and therefore it was held that no interference was necessary.

(3.) We would have normally dismissed this appeal, but we think, there is a matter of principle involved which has to be clarified. The power to appoint the Headmaster or a teacher is vested in the Manager under the educational Act and the Rules. Notwithstanding the restrictions and the limitations introduced by the Act and Rules this power is still with the Manager. The only insistence by the Act and the Rules being that this power must be exercised subject to the provisions of the Act and Rules. No educational authority has the power in the first instance to direct that any person should be appointed as a teacher or the Headmaster in a school. That power must be exercised by the Manager. This is understandable, and is as it should be, because it is he who has to run the school and his power of choice and his ideas of competence and the manner in which he wants the school to be run, which we expect would be in the most efficient manner, and in the best interests, of the pupils and in the interests of general public, must not be interfered with by the educational authorities created by the statute only for the purpose of ensuring fair play and the prevention of favourism or of denying to persons rights they have under the statute and the rules. Often times this position is forgotten, and the only reason why we are now dealing with this matter in appeal is to remind the authorities concerned that this is the position and this must be strictly followed and adhered to.