SALEELA A. Vs. LAILA T. M. MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P5 and P5(a) and also Ext.P13 order.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition is as follows:- Petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School Teacher in the 1st respondent school on 19/12/1990. As per Ext.P1 seniority list she is ranked No.2, whereas the 2nd respondent is ranked No.3. As the Headmaster was due to retire on 31/5/2021 petitioner made Exts.P2 and P3 representation requesting to appoint her as Headmistress based on Rule 44 of Chapter XIV of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1959 '). While so, by Ext.P4 proceedings the 1st respondent Manager individually took a decision to appoint the 2nd respondent as Headmistress who is admittedly junior to the petitioner. Later the 1st respondent issued Exts.P5 and P5(a) proceedings appointing the 2nd respondent as Headmistress. In order to overlook the superior claim of the petitioner for appointment as Headmistress the 2nd respondent relied in Ext.P5(a) that the institution is a minority institution and therefore they could make appointments ignoring the seniority of the petitioner.

(3.) Ext.P6 appeal was preferred by the petitioner. While so, the manager by a subsequent proceedings issued as Ext.P7, promoted the 2nd respondent to the post of Headmistress. The Assistant Education Officer declined to approve the appointment as per Ext.P9 order in view of the delay in submitting the same for approval. Against which appeal was preferred before the Deputy Director of Education who as per Ext.P10 order condoned the delay in submitting the proposal for approval, and by Ext.P11 order the District Education Officer issued orders directing the 3rd respondent AEO to approve the appointment of the 2nd respondent. Petitioner preferred Ext.P12 appeal before the 5th respondent. Without considering any of the contentions in Ext.P12 appeal the 3rd respondent AEO issued Ext.P13 order approving the appointment of the 2nd respondent. Petitioner would contend that going by the amendment to Rule 18 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, the teachers who are otherwise eligible for being promoted as head teachers shall be exempted from passing such departmental tests, and based on the said amendment to the Rules which is produced as Ext.P14, it is contended that petitioner is exempted from passing the test qualification as per the provisions of the above said Rule.