N. BINUKUMAR Vs. MANAGER UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was appointed as a U.P.S.A. in the first respondent school with effect from 2.8.1999, was a candidate for appointment to the post of Headmaster, which arose in the school on 1.5.2006. On the said date he was the senior most U.P.S.A. in the school who was entitled, as per the law then in force, for appointment to the post of Headmaster. He, however, relinquished his claim through Ext. P1 relinquishment letter, so as to facilitate the appointment of Sri. Balachandran who was also a U.P.S.A. in the same school, and senior in service to the petitioner, but who faced the irregularity of not having the necessary qualifications for the post, at the relevant point in time. It is pointed out that the irregularity with regard to the qualification was a condonable one and the Manager of the school had applied for a condonation and was awaiting favourable orders from the department in the matter. At any rate, acting on Ext. P1 relinquishment letter given by the petitioner, the said Sri. Balachandran was appointed to the vacancy that arose with effect from 1.5.2006 and continued up till his retirement on 31.5.2012. The said appointment was also approved by the educational authorities in terms of the Kerala Education Rules.

(2.) IT would appear that, thereafter, on the retirement of the said Sri. Balachandran, a vacancy arose to the post of Headmaster in the school with effect from 1.6.2012. The first respondent Manager thereupon appointed the petitioner as the Headmaster and his appointment was sent for approval to the second respondent. The second respondent, by Ext. P4 order, denied the approval of the petitioner's appointment as Headmaster. The further appeals and revisions pursued by the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules also did not yield any favourable result at the hands of the educational authorities. Eventually, Ext. P7 order came to be passed by the fifth respondent wherein it was found that as between the petitioner and the sixth respondent, it was the sixth respondent who was eligible to be considered to the post of Headmaster, in the vacancy that arose on 1.6.2012. In Ext. P7 order the reason stated by the fifth respondent is that the sixth respondent was senior to the petitioner and, while she was qualified for the post when the vacancy arose with effect from 1.5.2006, she could not be considered then on account of the preference that the petitioner enjoyed, for consideration to the post. On account of a subsequent amendment to the Kerala Education Rules, however, the petitioner stood eligible for consideration to the post of Headmaster to the vacancy that arose on 1.6.2012. It was in these circumstances that the sixth respondent was found eligible for appointment as Headmistress to the vacancy that arose in the school on 1.6.2012 as per Ext. P7 order. Ext. P7 order, to the extent it does not recognise the petitioner as the person who was entitled to the post of Headmaster to the vacancy that arose with effect from 1.6.2012, is impugned in the writ petition inter alia on the ground that, in so far as the fifth respondent finds that Ext. P1 relinquishment letter given by the petitioner was defective, and consequently that the approval of the appointment of Sri. Balachandran as Headmaster was also not in order, the petitioner should have been considered for the post of Headmaster by treating the vacancy as one which arose with effect from 1.5.2006.

(3.) I have heard Sri. S. Muhammed Haneef, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Smt. Annie Jacob, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent Manager, Sri. V.K. Rafeek, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 5 and Sri. M.R. Anison, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sixth respondent.