LAILA BEEGAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition challenging Ext.P6 issued by the 5th respondent herein, by which, the petitioner's claim for appointment to the post of Headmistress, in preference to the 6th respondent herein stood rejected. The petitioner also seeks for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Headmistress with effect from 1/6/2020 and also to approve the same.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as under:

(3.) However, the petitioner claims that insofar as she had completed 50 years of age on 2/5/2016, was entitled to exemption from acquiring the qualification as above, by virtue of Rule 45B(4) of the KER. Though such a claim was made, the 5th respondent Manager appointed the 6th respondent as the Headmaster who was admittedly fully test qualified. Though the petitioner submitted a representation pointing out that even though the 6th respondent was fully test qualified, insofar as the petitioner has crossed the age of 50, she is entitled to the benefits under Rule 45B(4) of the KER, the said representation stood rejected by Ext.P6 issued by the 5th respondent, taking the view that the petitioner was bound to pass the required test even if she had crossed the age of 50 years, referring to a judgment rendered by this Court in OP(KAT) No.105 of 2019.