UNNIKRISHNAN Vs. D E O PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in O.P. 3206/1996 in the appellant. He sought appointment as Headmaster of A.U.P.S., Thenur West, Thenur in Palakkad. His appointment was not agreed to by the educational officers. Hence he approached this Court inter alia praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the educational officers declining his appointment as Headmaster. Learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 26.2.1996, dismissed the original Petition. Hence this appeal.

(2.) One Sri. P.K. Velayudhan Ezhuthassan was the owner and Manager of A.U.P.S. Thenur West, Thenur in Palakkad. On his death, the school and assets devolved on his legal heirs, including the appellant. For the management and conduct of the school, legal heirs of Ezhuthassan entered into an agreement, marked in this case as Exhibit P3. That agreement asserts that all the legal heirs of Ezhuthassan, including the appellant, are entitled to the school and its assets and that they are to nominate one from among them to act as Manager of the school. The person so chosen from among themselves, as per f clause-5 of Exhibit P3, is liable to be removed and a new person nominated in his place. From Exhibit P3, it is clear that the management of the school and its assets devolved on all the legal heirs in equal right and they form the managing body. R.8(1) of Chap.3 of K.E.R, states that no person who is a Manager or member of other office bearer of the managing body shall be eligible for any appointment in that school. This provision casts an embargo on a member of the managing body from holding any post in the staff of the school. This provision has a proviso. It states that Managers or members or other office bearers of the managing body working as teachers, including Headmasters, when these rules came into force may continue to do so. This proviso thus makers it clear that if any member of the managing body of the school was already working as teacher, including as Headmaster, when the rules came into force can continue to discharge the duties as such. The rule came into force on 15.8.1961.

(3.) Appellant was appointed as a teacher in the school on 27.6.1980, long after the provisions contained in R.8 of Chapter III was brought into force. But, at that time, the appointment was proper, because the school belonged solely to the appellant's father as his proprietary concern. At that time, petitioner was not a member or office bearer of any managing body of the school. But, on the death of his father on 10.2.1981, he became a member of the managing body of the school. Thereafter, he cannot get a fresh appointment as Headmaster, because of the provision contained in the rules.