MARIAM KOSHY Vs. JOLLY VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point in controversy is whether Ext. R2(a) letter dated 25-11-1989 given by the petitioner relinquishing the post of Headmaster is a permanent relinquishment within the meaning of Rule 44(1) of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules.

(2.) The headmaster of an aided L.R School had availed of leave from 25-11-1989 to 09-02-1990. Petitioner and others in the school were not qualified to be promoted to the post of headmaster. One Kesava Pillai was the only eligible person to be appointed to the post of headmaster since he had completed 50 years of age. Petitioner had neither acquired the test qualification; nor had she completed 50 years of age at that time and hence she could not be appointed as headmaster. However, Manager had obtained relinquishment letters from all the teachers including the petitioner even though petitioner could not have aspired for that post at that time. Later the post of headmaster became vacant on 30-06-1990 and therefore Kesava Pillai was appointed on a regular basis as headmaster from 01-07-1990 and he retired from service on superannuation on 31-05-1993. By that time petitioner had completed 50 years of age as on 14-05-1993 and became fully qualified to hold the post of headmaster in the vacancy which arose on 01-06-1993. Manager however without appointing the petitioner, who was the senior most qualified person, appointed the first respondent from 02-07-1993 who had put in only three years of service and was unqualified. Aggrieved by the same petitioner submitted a representation before the Assistant Educational Officer on 03-07-1993 and again on 27-10-1994 and received communication from the Assistant Educational Officer stating that the Director of Public Instruction had already rejected her representation. Later she had to move be Government by filing representation dated 23-11-1994. Due to the failure on the part of the Government in disposing that representation she had to file O.P. No. 12042 of 1997 before this Court which was disposed of on 14-07-1997 directing the Government to pass orders on the representation. Government rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that she had permanently relinquished her claim for appointment to the post of headmaster. Aggrieved by the same she has approached this Court by filing O.P. No. 284 of 1998. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition stating that Ext.R2(a) letter would amount to permanently relinquishing the claim for appointment to the post of headmaster. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred.

(3.) The entire dispute centres round the validity or otherwise of Ext. R2(a) relinquishment letter. Headmaster of the aided school had taken leave for the period from 25-11-1989 to 09-02-1990. Petitioner was not qualified at that time to be appointed to the post of headmaster. Hence one Kesava Pillai who he had got permanent exemption on completion of 50 years of age was appointed as headmaster. Manager had obtained relinquishment letters from other teachers including the petitioner. In our view, there was no necessity for obtaining relinquishment letters from the petitioner since she was not qualified to be appointed to the post of headmaster. She had neither acquired the test qualification nor had she completed 50 years of age at that time. Kesava Pillai though was having lesser length of service was qualified for promotion and he was appointed as Headmaster since the petitioner was not qualified on that date. Kesava Pillai retired on superannuation on 31-5-1993 and the vacancy of Headmaster arose on 1-6-1993 petitioner was qualified and was the seniormost teacher. Manager denied promotion to the petitioner on the strength of Ext.R2(a) relinquishment letter stating that the petitioner had permanently relinquished her claim to the post of Headmaster.