O PRASANNAKUMARY Vs. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following two questions arise for decision in this case:-

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as U. P. S. A. in M. S. M. High School, Chathinamkulam on 29. 7. 1985 and the school became a Higher Secondary School with effect from 27. 8. 1998. For appointment to the various posts in the Higher Secondary School, the Selection Committee constituted by the manager prepared a select list containing the names of 9 persons including the petitioner. The only person from the existing teachers in the school amongst those 9 persons was the petitioner. The petitioner in this context relies on Ext. P1 G. O. and claims on the basis of Ext. P1 that 25% of the vacancies in the Higher Secondary School are to be reserved for being filled up by Higher School Assistants and Primary School teachers and only the remaining 75% posts can be filled up by direct recruits. According to the petitioner, only after appointing her could the manager have appointed anybody else from the select list. But instead of doing so, what the manager did was to appoint the 3rd respondent as H. S. S. T. (Physics) on 27. 8. 1998. Thereafter only the petitioner was appointed as H. S. S. T. (Economics) and Ext. P2 is the appointment order given to her. Petitioner's appointment was approved only as a part-time H. S. S. T. and Ext. P3 is the approval order. Complaining about the priority given to the 3rd respondent and also about her approval being only as a part-time H. S. S. T. , the petitioner filed Ext. P4 representation which was directed to be disposed of by this Court in Ext. P5 judgment. But the 1st respondent-Director of Higher Secondary Education rejected Ext. P4 by passing Ext. P6. Petitioner relies on Ext. P7 judgment of a Division Bench of this Court and Ext. P8 judgment of a Single Judge and contends that the law is settled by the decisions of this Court that whether the post is full-time or not, persons like the petitioner are entitled to have their appointment as full-time H. S. S. T. in Economics approved by the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, the reasoning in Ext. P6 based on the number of periods available in the Subject is patently illegal. The petitioner then refers to the Special Rules governing the method of appointment and qualifications of teachers and non-teaching staff in aided Higher Secondary Schools which were notified by G. O. (P ). 331/2001/g. Edn. dated 9. 11. 2001, published in the Gazette on 12. 11. 2001, introducing Chapter XXXII to the Kerala Education Rules. The petitioner points out that as per the Special Rules, appointment to the post of Principal of Higher Secondary Schools has to be made from Higher Secondary School Teachers and also by transfer of Headmasters in the ratio 2:1. One of the additional qualifications for appointment of Principal of Higher Secondary Schools is minimum approved teaching experience of 12 years and preference is to be given to teaching experience at the Higher Secondary School level. Ext. P9 G. O. (G. O. (MS ). No. 338/2003/g. Edn. dated 16. 12. 2003) issued by the Government in implementation of the Special Rules regarding appointment of Principals of Higher Secondary Schools is also produced by the petitioner who points out that qualification and experience in teaching as per the Special Rules will be required while making transfer postings from H. S. As. also. The petitioner has also produced Ext. P10 G. O. dated 14. 6. 2004 which provides that in the absence of persons with 12 years' teaching experience, the seniormost H. S. S. T. will be put in charge of the Principal. It is alleged that the 4th respondent is presently working as the Principal in charge of the Higher Secondary School and she being unqualified is to be replaced by a Higher Secondary School Teacher as per the Special Rules and Exts. P9 and P10. Petitioner claims that among the H. S. S. Ts. in the school, she is the only qualified H. S. S. T. having qualifications educational and experiencewise. The petitioner has come to know that instead of appointing her who is qualified as per the Rules and also as per Exts. P9 and P10, the manager has sent up a proposal seeking permission to appoint the 3rd respondent as Principal and is making an attempt to get permission from the 1st respondent for replacing the 4th respondent. It is on these allegations that the petitioner has raised grounds A to E and filed the Writ Petition for the following reliefs:-

(3.) THE present manager of the school has filed a counter affidavit. It is conceded that in the select list of H. S. S. Ts. prepared by the Assistant Director, Higher Secondary Education, on the basis of an interview held in the school on 26. 8. 1998, there were 9 candidates including the petitioner. The petitioner was transferred on the basis of the said selection and re-appointed as H. S. S. T. (Economics) with effect from 28. 8. 1998 and was allowed to join duty on that day itself. The petitioner was the only qualified hand available in the school for appointment by transfer in the 25% quota. But in the staff fixation order for 1998-99, there was only a part-time post of H. S. S. T. sanctioned for Economics. Ext. R2 (a) is the staff fixation order. But for Physical Science, there was a full-time post against which the 3rd respondent was appointed on 27. 8. 1998. The various selectees were appointed on different dates. Interpreting clause 2 (i) of Ext. P1, the counter affidavit contends that it is not obligatory that the manager should fill up the vacancies set apart for the 25% inservice candidates first. The petitioner could have been appointed only as a part-time Higher Secondary School teacher as per the staff fixation order and she has been approved only as a part-time Higher Secondary School teacher. A full-time post was sanctioned in the school for Economics only on 15. 7. 1999 and immediately thereafter she was appointed to that post with effect from 15. 7. 1999. The manager has not acted illegally.