C R RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this case is whether invocation of sub-rule(6) of Rule 45C of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules for the purpose of appointing the W.R(C)No.22686of2005. Decided on 9th December, 2005. seniormost teacher on the staff of the school as teacher in-charge will be justified in a case where the Manager has already invoked Rule 11 of Chapter XIV-A for the purpose of making available a teacher qualified to be appointed as regular Head Mistress and there are no valid reasons for the District Educational Officer to decline the Manager's request for approval under R. 11(1)

(2.) The petitioner, Manager of a Vocational Higher Secondary School, is aggrieved by Ext.PS order passed by the District Educational Officer (D.E.O.) directing him to appoint the second respondent a High School Assistant in his school, who does not admittedly have the requisite qualification to be appointed as Head Mistress, as the teacher in-charge of the school under Sub-rule (6) of Rule 45C of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. Vacancy arose in the school on 1.4.2005 due to the retirement of the Head Mistress one Smt. S. Anandavalli Kunjamma. None among the teaching staff of the school were qualified in terms of Rules 44A and 45 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules to be promoted as Head Mistress, as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. The second respondent Smt. P.T.Isha was the senior most H.S.A. in the school but she having not completed twelve years of graduate service was not qualified to be promoted as Head Mistress, Under the above circumstances, the petitioner advertised in the Malayala Manorama daily inviting applications for filling up the post of Head Mistress, but nobody responded to the advertisement. Under these circumstances, the petitioner sought for the consent of the fourth respondent, who is a Manager of another local high school established by a different educational agency, vide Ext.Pl in the matter of transferring the third respondent who was a qualified High School Assistant in the fourth respondent's school over to the petitioner's school. The third respondent who was sought to be transferred from the fourth respondent's school also agreed to the proposal as laid down in Rule 11 of Chapter XIV-A K.E; R. Vide Ext.P2 the fourth respondent expressed his consent in the matter of transferring and appointing the third respondent as Head Mistress of the petitioner's school. Prior approval of the D.E.O was sought for by the petirioner as required by Rule 11 of Chapter XIV-A in the matter. The second respondent on coming to know about the move which was on, filed Ext.P4 representation before the first respondent requesting that she be appointed as teacher in-charge of the school under Rule 45C of Chapter XIV-A. The grievance of the petitioner is that though Ext.P4 was absolutely unsustainable in law, the first respondent, D.E.O. has passed Ext.P5 order granting the request of the second respondent. Ext. P5 is assailed on the various grounds raised in the Writ Petition and the petitioner seek the following reliefs:--

(3.) Though all the respondents were served with notice the third respondent alone has filed a counter affidavit. The third respondent supports the claim of the petitioner.