USHA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The perennial problem arising out of the dispute between a graduate and non graduate to be appointed as a Headmaster of an Aided School has cropped up again in this Original Petition. The Headmaster of the School belonging to the fourth respondent retired on 31.5.1995. The 3rd respondent, who is an under-graduate, is the seniormost teacher in the School. But she did not have the test qualification at that time. Therefore, she was appointed as a teacher in charge. The petitioner is a graduate. She was appointed in the school on 6.6.1994. At the time of her appointment she was a graduate with B.Ed. qualification. At the time of arising of the vacancy of the Headmaster on 1.6.1995, the petitioner also did not have the test qualification. She acquired the test qualification by passing the test conducted in June, 1995, the result of which was published in September, 1995. The third respondent was permanently exempted on completion of 50 years of age on 24.4.1996.

(2.) When the petitioner put forward her claim for appointment as a Headmistress to the School, the matter was referred to the Director of Public Instructions. The Director of Public Instructions informed the fourth respondent that the Teacher who claimed the post of Headmistress should be appointed since she had the necessary educational and test qualification. But the fourth respondent appointed the third respondent which was approved by the 2nd respondent as per order dt 28.11.1995. When the fourth respondent requested the second respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioner for appointment as Headmistress, the 2nd respondent by Ext. P2 letter informed the fourth respondent that the claim of the petitioner was unsustainable, since she did not have the qualification prescribed under R.45B Chap.14A of KER.

(3.) Still the 4th respondent appointed the petitioner as Headmistress on 23.2.1996. The 3rd respondent filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent The 3rd respondent also approached this Court by filing O.P. No. 4337 of 1996. This court in CMP No. 8796/1996 directed the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the revision petition. Accordingly, the first respondent passed Ext. P3 order dt 15.7.1996 after hearing all the affected parties and held that the third respondent is the rightful claimant to the post of Headmistress. The reasoning of the first respondent in upholding the claim of me third respondent was that the petitioner did not have five years teaching experience after acquisition of B .Ed. Degree and that she also did not have service equal to half of the period of service of the 3rd respondent.