N.S. BRAHMANANDAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) Petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition was working as Headmaster in one of the High School under the 4th respondent Corporate Management. According to the petitioner, there are three Higher Secondary Schools and six High Schools under the 4th respondent management. The posts of Principals in three Higher Secondary Schools were filled up by following Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of KER. That is, by following the ratio of 2:1 between Higher Secondary School Teachers and qualified High School Headmasters. Accordingly, two Principals are to be promoted from Higher Secondary School Teachers and one by transfer appointed from High School Headmaster. One Sri.Isaih Thanka Boss, retired on superannuation with effect from 31.03.2011 from LMS Higher Secondary School, Chemboor in Thirvananthapuram. Therefore, the post of Principal became vacant from 01.04.2011 in that school. The dispute is as to how the said vacant post of Principal is to be filled up. As per the Rules, the post has to be filled by a qualified Headmaster following the ratio of 2:1 as provided under Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII KER. According to the petitioner, since petitioner is the only qualified Headmaster for transfer appointment as Principal under the 4th respondent Corporate Management, he applied for the post. But, his request was rejected as per Ext.P5 by the Corporate Management on the ground that, the said post is to be filled up by a Higher Secondary School Teacher, as it is the 4th post. According to the management, the 4th and 5th posts will also go to Higher Secondary School Teachers and the petitioner can aspire for the 6th vacancy only. The case projected by the petitioner is that, the said approach made by the management is against the Rules and if the view taken by the manager is accepted, there will be only one Higher Secondary School Teacher turned Principal for many years and that is not the intention of the Rule makers.

(3.) Earlier, petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.16197/2011, which was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment directing the 1st respondent Government to pass orders on Ext.P8 representation submitted by the petitioner. However, Government has declined the claim raised by the petitioner as per Ext.P11. It is also the case of the petitioner that, the contention raised by the 4th respondent that they have got the minority status conferred already and therefore they are entitled to make appointment of their choice, cannot be sustained under law. It is also submitted that the interpretation made to Rule 4 by the Government is directly against Note 3 to Rule 5 KS and SSR part II and various judgments of this Court. It is in this background this writ petition is filed.