PRASAD Vs. PHILIPOSE MAR DILSHUS U P SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three Writ Appeals were filed against the common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal No. 1163 of 2002 is filed by a party with leave as he was not a party in the Original Petition. W.P.(C) No. 35254 of 2003 is filed by the manager to drop the proceedings to recover the loss suffered by the Government. For describing the parties, we will refer to the parties mentioned in the judgment in O.P.No. 3409 of 1999 and exhibits mentioned therein unless otherwise stated.

(2.) Second petitioner as well as fifth respondent and appellant in W.A.No. 1163 of 2002 were members of the teaching staff in the first respondent's school. A post of headmaster arose on 1.6.1994. The management appointed the second petitioner on 12.1.1996 with effect from 1.6.1994. The Assistant Educational Officer rejected the appointment by order dated 15.5.1995. The District Educational Officer allowed the appeal filed by the management and this Court in O.P.No. 13249 of 1995 directed the District Educational Officer to reconsider the matter. The District Educational Officer approved the appointment of the second petitioner. A revision petition was filed by the fifth respondent and the revision petition was allowed on 10.9.1997. The management challenged the Government Order by filing O.P. No. 16888 of 1997. Since the Government order passed in favour of the fifth respondent was not passed by the officer who heard the revision petition, that was set aside and the matter was remanded. Government again reconsidered the matter and directed to appoint fifth respondent as headmistress by Ext.P4 order dated 27.1.1999 and second petitioner filed O.P.No. 3409 of 1999. O.P.No. 4017 of 2002 was filed by the fifth respondent for implementation of the Government Order. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 8.4.2002 allowed the Writ Petition filed by the fifth respondent and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the management and second petitioner. In the light of the above decision, fifth respondent is entitled to be appointed with effect from 1.6.1994, that is, the date of occurrence of the vacancy. Second petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2002. Appellant in W.A.No. 1163 of 2002 approached this Court contending that he has relinquished his right only in favour of the second petitioner and on her retirement, he is entitled to be appointed. Now, the question is who is entitled to be appointed as headmaster with effect from 1.6.1994.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the school is a minority institution and, therefore, it has got freedom to appoint any of the qualified teachers as headmaster. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India protects the right of the management to establish and administer the schools. Headmaster is the person who is in charge of the school and immediate management and supervision of both the teaching staff as well as the students. He has to control the discipline and it is pivotal to the administration and hence under Article 30(1), the management has got freedom to appoint any qualified person as headmaster. In fact, the learned Single Judge accepted that position. In various Division Bench decisions of this Court as well as in the decision of the decision of the Supreme Court in N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School and Ors., , interpreting the position with respect to Kerala Education Rules itself it was held that the management has got a right to choose qualified persons as headmaster of the school. The Supreme Court observed in paragraph 28 as follows: