SOSAMMA Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are two seniormost teachers of the fifth respondent school. The above school was originally started by one P. J. Thomas. He sold the school to Rt. Rev. Benedict Mar Gregorious Arch Bishop of Trivandrum Corporate Manager, MSC Schools, Pattom. Sanction was accorded for the transfer of the management by the second respondent The Manager of the school requested to treat the School as a separate unit and the Corporate Manager also agreed to the above request. Thus, the second respondent passed Ext. P1 order by which sanction was accorded to treat the teachers in the School of the fifth respondent who were in service on the date of transfer as a separate unit as per R.36A of Chap.14A KER from the date of transfer of management.

(2.) A vacancy of Headmaster arose in the school on 1.7.1988. The first petitioner was the seniormost teacher and therefore, she was entitled to be appointed as Headmaster in accordance with the seniority. But the Manager appointed the 6th respondent who was junior to the petitioners. The objection of the first petitioner against the appointment of the 6th respondent was rejected and the 4th respondent approved the appointment of the 6th respondent as Headmaster. The matter was taken up in revision before the first respondent. The 1st respondent as per Ext. P4, rejected the revision petition and confirmed the approval of the appointment of the 6th respondent. Ext. P4 is under challenge in this Original Petition.

(3.) Ext. P4 relies on two grounds for rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The first ground is that the first petitioner is stated to be not fully qualified for promotion to the post of Headmaster as she had not passed the departmental test qualification. The second ground, or the primary ground is that the school is an institution established and administered by a minority community and therefore the ordinary rule of seniority need not be followed in the matter of appointment of a Headmaster. I will take up first the contention regarding the qualification of the first petitioner to be appointed as Head master. In ground D of the Original Petition it has been stated that the first petitioner has attained the age of 50 years on 1.7.1988 and therefore she was permanently exempted from acquiring the test qualification and therefore the finding in Ext. P4 that the first petitioner had not passed the departmental test qualification is unsustainable. There is absolutely no denial of this statement in the counter affidavits filed by respondents 1, 5 and 6. Therefore, the only conclusion is that the averment in the Original Petition regarding the qualification of the first petitioner stands uncontroverted.