G PRASANNAKUMARY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following two questions arise for decision in this case: 1. Whether the Manager is bound, on the terms of G. O. (Ms) No. 1 62/98/g. Edn. , dated 13-5-1998 governing the appointment of Higher Secondary School Teachers in schools where Higher Secondary course is newly sanctioned, to make appointments to the quota of 25% reserved for existing teachers in the school before he makes appointment to the remaining 75% posts by direct recruitment? 2. Whether the minimum teaching experience of 12 years which is one of the qualifications required for appointment of Principals in Higher Secondary Schools by promotion of Higher Secondary School Teachers, can include teaching experience at the U. P. S. A. level also?

(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 High 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 Chap. 32 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. 9 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 experience wise. 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: 1. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records relating to Ext. P3 to the extent it gives approval of appointment of the petitioner to the post of part time H. S. S. T. with effect from 28-8-1998 and Ext. P6, and quashing the same; 2. issue a writ commanding the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner as full time H. S. S. T. in Economics with effect from 27-8-1998 in preference to the 3rd respondent and a further direction to the 1st respondent to approve the same; 3. issue a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as full time H. S. S. T. in preference to the 3rd respondent and based on that all consequential benefits be made available to the petitioner; 4. command respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as Principal forthwith; and 5. issue a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Principal replacing the 4th respondent;

(3.) I have heard the submissions of Sri C. P. Sudhakara Prasad, Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. V. P. Seemanthini, Advocate for respondents 2 to 4. I have also heard the submissions of Sri M. A. Thomaskutty, learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent Director. Learned Senior Counsel and Smt. V. P. Seemanthini addressed arguments on the basis of the pleadings of their respective clients and the documents produced by them. Learned Government Pleader would to a certain extent support the submissions of Sri Sudhakara Prasad and agree that the 12 years minimum teaching experience required for promotion as per R. 6 of Chap. 32, K. E. R. can include U. P. S. A. service also.