K.M. NARAYANAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Headmaster by the 5th respondent. His appointment was not approved by the 4th respondent as per Ext. P - 1 order. The reasoning of the 4th respondent in Ext. P - 1 is as follows: The post fell vacant on 1st April 1993. The post of Headmaster should be filled up by appointing a qualified hand who has the prescribed test qualification or who stands exempted from passing the test qualification by virtue of completion of 50 years of age. The petitioner at that time had neither acquired the test qualification nor attained 50 years of age. At the same time, the 6th respondent who is a graduate is qualified to be appointed as Headmaster. Against Ext. P - 1, the 5th respondent filed Ext. P - 2 appeal before third respondent. The third respondent by Ext. P - 3 order rejected the appeal. Ext. P - 3 was challenged by the 5th respondent before the second respondent and the second respondent also by Ext. P - 5 order confirmed the same. On revision, the first respondent by Ext. P - 7 order rejected the contentions of the 5th respondent and confirmed the orders passed by the educational authorities.

(2.) Sri M. Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is the senior most qualified teacher having S.S.L.C. and T.T.C. and therefore half the service mentioned in R.45 of Chap.14A of the K.E.R, must be counted with reference to the total service of the petitioner. If that is taken into consideration, the 6th respondent does not have half the service of the petitioner. R.45 of Chap.14A of the K.E.R. states that if there is a graduate teacher with B. Ed. or other equivalent qualification and who has got at least five years experience in teaching after acquisition of B. Ed. degree, he may be appointed as Headmaster provided he has got a service equal to half of the period of service of the senior most undergraduate teacher. If graduate teachers with the aforesaid qualification and service arc not available in the school, the senior most primary school teacher with S.S.L.C. or equivalent and T.T.C. or any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as primary School Assistant may be appointed.

(3.) The 'senior most undergraduate teacher' mentioned in R.45 was the subject matter of a decision of a Division Bench of this court reported in Raghavan Nair v. Balachandran Nair 1992 (1) KLT 390 . In the above case, a senior most undergraduate teacher was unqualified to be appointed as Headmaster. Therefore the question arose whether 'half the service' mentioned in R.45 must be counted with reference to the total service of the unqualified senior undergraduate teacher or with reference to the total service of a qualified non graduate teacher. In that case the learned Single Judge held that the computation of half service should be with the service of a person otherwise 'qualified' to be appointed as Headmaster and not with the service of a person who was otherwise not qualified to be appointed as Headmaster for want of S.S.L.C. and T.T.C. The finding of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench in the following words: