HIDAYUTHUL MUSLIMEEN YATHEEMKHANA SANGHAM Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Hidayuthul Muslimeen Yatheemkhana Sangham, has filed this writ petition through its General Secretary Sri V.Kunhimoideenkutty. Ext.P6 is the order under challenge.

(2.) A vacancy of Headmaster arose in the school on 1.6.2016 consequent to retirement. The petitioner thereupon appointed the 4th respondent as Headmaster. The petitioner claims that as per the terms of the bye-laws the General Secretary of the Sangham is the Manager and Correspondent of the school and the educational institutions run by the Sangham are declared as minority institutions covered by Section 2(g) of National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions as provided in Ext.P1 certificate. The petitioner has produced Ext.P2 order by which approval was granted to Sri V.Kunhimoideenkutty to function as Manager of the school for the period from 1.2011 to 31.1.2014. It is also claimed that the office bearers and existing committee can continue in office until a new committee is constituted as per the provisions contained in the bye-law of the Sangham and therefore the office bearers of the Sangham will continue in the office despite the expiry of the term of approval. Ext.P3 order is also produced pointing out that the 1st respondent had already refused permission to the office bearers to continue. However, when the vacancy of Headmaster arose, the petitioner promoted the 4th respondent as Headmaster. Admittedly the 4th respondent did not have the test qualification as prescribed under Rule 44A of Chapter XIVA KER. However on the ground that he crossed 50 years of age, the petitioner appointed the 4th respondent as per Ext.P5 order. The 3rd respondent submitted objection against the 4th respondent's appointment as per Ext.P5 order, before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P6 order rejecting the appointment of the 4th respondent.

(3.) Seeing that the 3rd respondent was disqualified and he was the only HSA who is eligible and qualified for appointment as Headmaster, the st respondent appointed the 3rd respondent as teacher in charge on condition that he will be entitled to any benefit on account of the purpose of regular appointment as Headmaster. The 1st respondent also considered the Government order G.O(Ms) .No.157/2015/G./Edn. dated 10.06.2015 which provided for preference for qualified hands for appointment as Headmasters. Ext.P6 is the order under challenge in this writ petition.