P SASI Vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this original petition is a teacher in the Sree Narayana Teacher's Training Institute, Neeleswar, of which the 3rd respondent is the manager. He has acquired qualifications of M.Sc. and M.Ed., as evidenced by Exts. P1 and P2 degree certificates. By Ext. P3 order dated 11/10/1989, he was appointed as a temporary teacher, in a leave vacancy, for the period from 11 /10/1989 to 02702/1990. Later on, by Ext. P 4 order dated 04/06/1990, he was appointed permanently with effect from 04/06/1990. He passed Account Test (Lower) and test in Kerala Education Act and Rules conducted by the Public Service Commission as evidenced by Exts. P5 and P6 certificates. While so, the post of Headmaster of the Institute became vacant on 01/04/1998 on the incumbent retiring from service on 31/03/1998. by Ext. P7 dated 30/03/1998, the 3rd respondent directed the retiring manager to handover charge of the post of Headmaster to the petitioner, who was the senior-most teacher of the school. By Ext. P7 (a) order dated 01/04/1998, the petitioner was appointed as teacher-in-charge and the petitioner took charge as such. However, the 2nd respondent-District Educational Officer, refused to approve the said appointment. In the meanwhile, difference of opinion arose between the 3rd respondent and the petitioner and by Ext. P9 show cause memo dated 14/11/1998, the 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to show cause, why the appointment of the petitioner as teacher-in-charge should not be reviewed. Ext. P10 memo of charges dated 16/11/1998 was also issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner had submitted Ext. P11 reply as also Ext. P12 statement of defence. However, the disciplinary action was not proceeded with by the 3rd respondent. Since the petitioner's appointment as teacher-in-charge was not approved by the D.E.O., the petitioner submitted Ext. P13 representation dated 15/03/1999 before the D.E.O. By Ext. P14 judgment dated 11/05/1999, this Court directed the D.E.O. to pass orders on Ext. P13 within three months. While so, the petitioner had to take medical leave. While the petitioner was on leave, the 3rd respondent appointed the 4th respondent as Headmaster of the school by transfer from an aided school under another educational agency, where he was working as a H.S.A (Maths), replacing the petitioner, although the 4th respondent did not have the minimum qualification of M.Ed prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education for holding the post of Headmaster/Principal. Since Exts. P15 and P16 representations of the petitioner against such appointment did not evoke any response from the 2nd and 1st respondents, the petitioner has filed this original petition seeking the following reliefs: "0 Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to the case. ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the appointment of 4th respondent to the post of Headmaster of the Sree Narayana Teachers' Training Institute, Neeleswar; iii) issue any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner is entitled to continue in the post of teacher-in-charge of Headmaster of Sree Narayana Teachers' Training Institute, Neeleswar; iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1 st and 2nd respondents to issue all the service benefits to the petitioner by restituting the petitioner as the Headmaster of the school managed by the 3rd respondent; v) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider and dispose of Ext. P14 & P15 in accordance with law; vi) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1 st and 2nd respondents to initiate appropriate legal actions against the 3rd respondent for appointing the 4th respondent as headmaster of the school, in violation of the binding provisions of Kerala Education Act and Kerala Education Rules."

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the NCTE being the supreme central authority competent to prescribe educational standards for Teacher's Training Institutes, the qualifications prescribed by NCTE for appointment as Headmaster in Teacher's Training Institutes are mandatory and therefore no person who does not process the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE can be appointed as Headmaster of a Teacher's Training Institute. By Ext. P20, the NCTE has prescribed norms and standards for Teacher Education Institutes in 1995, as per which M.Ed. is an essential qualification for appointment to the post of Headmaster in a Teacher's Training Institute. THE 4th respondent, at the time of his appointment, did not possess the qualification of M.Ed. and therefore was not qualified to be appointed as Headmaster of the Institute. Once it is found that the 4th respondent was not qualified at the time of appointment, then the petitioner who is the senior-most teacher of the school is entitled to be approved as the teacher-in-charge of the school as per Rule 45C(6) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules and on his acquiring 12 years' service prescribed in Rule 44A of Chapter XIVA of the KER, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Headmaster of the Institute, since the petitioner does possess the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE also. According to the petitioner, the petitioner obtained 12 years' service qualification on 03/06/2002 and since no other teacher of the Institute became qualified for promotion as Headmaster by that time, and the vacancy is deemed to have continued till then, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Headmaster with effect from 04/06/2002.

(3.) IN reply, the petitioner would contend that the 3rd respondent's school has no existence without recognition from NCTE and Ext. P19 provisional recognition dated 07/12/1998 has been issued with the specific condition that NCTE norms shall be strictly followed. He points out that one of the specific conditions therein is that qualified teaching and non-teaching staff should be appointed as per para 5 of NCTE norms. According to the petitioner, Ext. P20 contains the norms prescribed by the NCTE, and since para 5 thereof, which is what is referred to in Ext. P19, stipulates that M.Ed, with 5 years' teaching experience is an essential qualification for Headmaster/Principal of Teacher Education INstitutions, the 3rd respondent could not have validly appointed the 4th respondent, who did not possess the qualification so prescribed. He further contends that at best the qualification prescribed in Rule 44A of Chapter XIVA of KER can only be treated as an additional qualification prescribed by the State Government. He also submits that the norms prescribed by the NCTE overrides the qualifications prescribed by the State and that it has been settled by the decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court that in the event of conflict between the two, the qualifications prescribed by the statutory authority under the Central Act would prevail over the prescriptions in the State Rules, although the State can prescribe higher or additional qualifications. Since the 4th respondent did not possess M.Ed. Degree at the time of his appointment as Headmaster of the 3rd respondent's school in 1999, his appointment is liable to be set aside on the ground that he did not posses the essential qualification for appointment as Headmaster of a Teacher's Training INstitute, is the contention of the petitioner.