LEELA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Petition, the controversy is regarding the filling up of the post of Headmistress of an aided High School, of which the 4th respondent is the Manager. Petitioner commenced continuous service as HSA in the aforesaid school w. e. f. 15. 7. 1989 and was test qualified in december, 2001. Petitioner completed 12 years graduate service on 15. 7. 2001. In so far as the 5th respondent is concerned, her continuous service in the school as HSA commenced on 7. 6. 1993 and she got the test qualifications in June, 2000 and completed 12 years graduate service on 7. 6. 2005. As far as the 6th respondent is concerned, even according to the petitioner, she is senior to both the petitioner and the 5th respondent and was also qualified for the post in all respects. Therefore, details regarding her service particulars are not necessary.

(2.) THERE arose the vacancy of Headmistress in the school w. e. f. 1. 4. 2001. At that time, both the petitioner and the 5th respondent were unqualified. Petitioner submits that despite her eligibility and seniority, the 5th respondent was posted as Teacher in charge and that subsequently, she was promoted on a regular basis w. e. f. 7. 6. 2005. The appointment of the 5th respondent as Headmistress was approved by the D. E. O. and in appeal to the DPI, by ext. P5 order, the 5th respondent's promotion was set aside on the ground that the school did not have minority status and that the petitioner was the rightful claimant. In the revision filed by the Manager before the 1st respondent, Ext. P6 order was rendered taking the view that the school is a minority educational institution and on that basis, the promotion of the 5th respondent was also upheld. Petitioner sought review of Ext. P6 and that was rejected by ext. P7. The aforesaid orders were challenged before this Court in W. P. (C) No. 30984/05, in which this Court rendered Ext. P8 judgment.

(3.) IN the said judgment, referring to the judgment in Rev. K. C. Seth v. State of Kerala (1991 (2)KLT 662), the learned Judge took the view that it is clear that unless the institution is established and administered by the minority community, it will not be entitled to the benefit of rights under Art. 30 of the Constitution of India. Proceeding further, Learned Judge took note of the contention of the management that the school was originally established in 1950 and administered by a member of Nadar Christian community and therefore the school was founded by a member of the Christian Nadar Community. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Manager, St. Thomas U. P. S. v. Commissioner (2002 (1) KLT 655 (SC) = (2002) 2 SCC 497 ). Thereafter the learned Judge held as follows: