JAMEELA K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The right of a minority educational institution, in appointing a Headmaster, is the subject-matter of this writ petition. The petitioner, a senior-most teacher in a minority institute, who was suspended till 06/03/2013, is before this Court challenging appointment of the sixth respondent, a relatively junior, as Headmaster of the school with effect from 01/04/2013.

(2.) Though, in the writ petition, the petitioner had urged that the institution is not having minority status, there seems no such controversy at the time of arguments and the arguments mainly confined to the appointment of the sixth respondent on the ground that the institution failed to adhere to various dicta of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri. Kaleeswaram Raj argued that appointment of the sixth respondent was by flouting law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the institution, Shri. Jaju Babu defended the action of the institution and submitted that the selection of the sixth respondent is based on fair, reasonable and transparent procedure adopted by a minority institution which has such a right to appoint suitable person as Headmaster under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) There cannot be any controversy now at this point of time as to the right of minority institution to appoint a teacher of their own choice from among qualified teachers for appointment as Headmaster. This right flows from the Constitution and therefore, any ordinary law must yield to such constitutional right. Thus, prescription of seniority as envisaged under Rule 44(1) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules as such would not apply. Rule 44(1) mandates that Manager shall appoint Headmaster ordinarily according to seniority from the seniority list.