MANAGER, PARUDUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs. SANTHAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 4 and 6 in W.P.(C)No.16983 of 2017 have filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Sec. 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 challenging the judgment dtd. 10/1/2025 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which was one filed by the 1st respondent herein-petitioner, who retired from service on 31/5/2016, on attaining the age of superannuation, while working as HSA (Maths) in Parudur Higher Secondary School managed by the 1st appellant. In the said writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that she is entitled for arrears of salary based on her eligibility found by the 4th respondent State in Ext.P8 order dtd. 30/3/2017 to the post of Headmaster, Parudur Higher Secondary School, by modifying Ext.P8 order to that extent; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent State and the 6th respondent Accountant General (A&E), Kerala to sanction and pay the petitioner arrears of salary from 1/4/2015 till the date of retirement, in the post of Headmaster, Parudur Higher Secondary School, by holding that she had worked as such for the said period, and order recovery of the excess amount paid by the State to the 6th respondent (2nd appellant herein) from respondents 2 to 4 and 6 in the writ petition.

(2.) Going by the averments in the writ petition, while the petitioner was working as HSA (Maths), there arose a vacancy of Headmaster in Parudur Higher Secondary School, with effect from 1/4/2015, consequent to the retirement of the Headmaster Sri.P.M. Aryan on 31/3/2015. Though, as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy, the petitioner, who entered service as HSA (Maths) on 25/6/1984, was fully qualified for the post of Headmaster, under the provisions of Kerala Education Rules (KER), the 4th respondent Manager (1st appellant herein), appointed the 6th respondent (2nd appellant herein) as Headmaster of the School, ignoring the eligibility and experience of the petitioner and other senior qualified teachers. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 representation dtd. 31/3/2015 before the Manager and Ext.P2 representation dtd. 31/3/2015 before the District Educational Officer, Ottapalam. The District Educational Officer, vide Ext.P3 order dtd. 30/4/2015, informed the petitioner that her claim cannot be considered since she has not acquired the test qualification under Rule 18(1) of the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, and no exemption is provided to aided school teachers who have attained the age of 50 years. The petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal dtd. 2/6/2015 before the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad, which was dismissed by Ext.P5 order dtd. 29/9/2015. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 revision petition dtd. 14/11/2015 before the State. By Ext.P7 judgment dtd. 31/3/2016 in W.P.(C)No.12408 of 2016, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the State to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 revision petition, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. Alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Ext.P7 judgment, the petitioner filed Cont. Case (C)No.270 of 2017. During the pendency of that contempt case, the State issued Ext.P8 order dtd. 30/3/2017, according sanction to approve notional promotion of the petitioner as the Headmistress of Parudur Higher Secondary School, with effect from the date on which the 6th respondent in the writ petition (2nd appellant herein) took charge as Headmaster, subject to the condition that she will not be eligible for arrears of salary; however, her pensionary benefits shall be revised based on the notional pay. Claiming arrears of salary for the period from 1/4/2015 till 31/5/2016 in the post of Headmistress, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.16983 of 2017.

(3.) In the writ petition, the 6th respondent (2nd appellant herein), who was promoted as Headmaster of Parudur Higher Secondary School, with effect from 1/4/2015, filed a counter affidavit dtd. 2/7/2017, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Exts.R6(a) to R6(d) documents, by contending that his continuance as the Headmaster of the school, for the period from 1/4/2015 to 31/5/2017, is perfectly legal and valid and, therefore, he is entitled to all consequential benefits. The 1st respondent District Educational Officer filed a counter affidavit dtd. 30/1/2018, contending that the petitioner is not entitled to arrears of salary for the period from 1/4/2015 till 31/5/2016. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dtd. 17/2/2018.