GEEVARGHESE Vs. WHAMMED ASHRAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question touching upon the interpretation of R. 45 in Chap. XIV-A K. E. R. has come up for consideration in this appeal.

(2.) A post of Headmaster in A. U. P. School, Vazhikadavu fell vacant on April 1, 2004. Fourth respondent in the Original Petition is the only graduate teacher qualified for appointment to the post of Headmaster. But there were four undergraduate teachers senior to him. Of the undergraduate teachers, first three were not interested in the post of Headmaster with the result that one Muhammed Ashraf, the petitioner in the Writ Petition was the only available senior most undergraduate teacher in the school and 4th respondent, Geevarghese, the only qualified graduate teacher. Petitioner, Mohammed Ashraf joined the School on 4. 8. 1980. He had put in 23 years 9 months and 28 days service as on the date of occurrence of vacancy. Fourth respondent Geevarghese joined the service on 15. 7. 1988 and he had put in 15 years 10 months and 16 days service as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. Geevarghese is a graduate U. P. S. A. and had service of 5 years after acquiring the B. Ed. qualification. He has also got service equal to half the period of service of the petitioner undergraduate teacher who was the only undergraduate teacher available for consideration to the post of Headmaster. Manager appointed the petitioner Mohammed Ashraf as the Headmaster of the school and the same was approved by the Department. Fourth respondent approached the Government in revision. Government passed Ext. P6 order dated 17-1-2006 holding that 4th respondent was the rightful claimant for the post of Headmaster. Government took the view that even though Mohammed Ashraf was the senior most under graduate teacher, the 4th respondent, senior most graduate teacher had put in more than half of the period of service of Mohammed Ashraf, an undergraduate teacher. hence was the legitimate claimant for the post. Government found no justification in comparing the length of service between the 4th respondent and one Dayabai who is not staking any claim for the post of Headmaster. Government therefore allowed the revision holding that 4th respondent was fully qualified and was the rightful claimant for the post of Headmaster since he is graduate and also has more than half the period of service of undergraduate teacher. Aggrieved by the same the present Writ Petition was preferred challenging the Government order.

(3.) LEARNED single Judge took the view that a graduate teacher with the requisite qualification and 5 years' experience in teaching after acquisition of B. Ed. degree would get the nod for appointment if he has got half of the period of service of the senior most undergraduate teacher. Learned single Judge took the view that the eligibility of a graduate teacher has to he compared with the senior most undergraduate teacher whether he/she is a claimant for the post of Headmaster or not. Learned single Judge took the view that the rule does not envisage or contemplate a situation where the words "senior most undergraduate teacher" have to be read and understood as "the senior most undergraduate claimant". Learned single Judge referred to the decision in Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (AIR 1992 SC 96) and took the view that the Court has no power to add any words to any section in a Statute. Holding so, learned single Judge interfered with the government order and took the view that 4th respondent is not liable to be considered for the post of Headmaster since he did not have half of the period of service of Dayabhai, senior most undergraduate teacher in that school. Judgment under appeal is reported in Muhammed Ashraf v. State of Kerala (2007 (3) KLT 667 = ILR (2007) 3 Ker. 388 ).