K.C.VALSAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Multiple issues arise in these appeals, with respect to (i) the minority status of the aided school and (ii) the teacher who should be appointedas the Head Mistress/Master [for brevity "HM"], (iii) the legality of the suspension of a HM and (iv) the sustainability of the punishment awarded to that teacher. We will refer to the name of the parties in the judgment.

(2.) W.A.No.1624 of 2015 filed by K.C.Valsamma, one of the rival claimants to the post of HM, and W.A.No.1586 of 2015 filed by Jagi A.Jacob, who anticipates a consideration as HM in the future years; challenge the minority status of the institution as declared by the Government. The respondent Manager asserts protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India to select a HM of their choice. W.A.No.1500 of 2015 arises from a writ petition which challenged the orders of the Government which challengedthe orders of the Disciplinary Authority/Manager and the educational authorities as also the Government leading to imposition of a punishment of reversion of Valsamma from the post of HM to that of High School Assistant [for brevity "HSA"]. W.A.No.2060 of 2012 is filed by one C.A.Chacko, who was the successful claimant to the post of Manager, against the interference caused by the learned Single Judge to the punishment of reversion imposed on Valsamma. In fact the writ petition was filed against an order of the Government, pursuant to a direction of this Court to dispose of a revision against the punishment imposed. The order impugnedin that writ petition merely noticed that the revisionwas earlier disposed of. However the earlier order was produced as Ext,P7 in the said writ petition and dealt with the issue of the legality of the suspension. But the learned Single Judge considered the issue of the punishment imposed and found the same to be bad. In fact the order of the government approving the continuance of Valsamma on suspension (Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) No.3297/2007) was challenged in W.P.(C) No.7695/2007 from which W.A.No.1500 of 2015 arise. W.A.Nos.1500, 1586 and 1624 of 2015 are from a common judgment and W.A.No.2060 of 2012 is from a separate judgment. The rival claimants to the post of Manager are K.K.Iype and C.A. Chacko and that to the post of HM is A.T.Raju, the latter of whom is admittedly junior to Valsamma; but said to have been appointed invoking the protection for a minority institution as guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In the common judgment, the learned Single Judge found the institution to be enabled the protection under Article 30(1) and rejected the claim of Valsamma to the post of HM, since Raju was found to have been appointed by the Manager invoking the protection under Article 30(1). Valsamma's claim to the post of HM having been rejected, the further orders on the question of how her suspension period would be treated was left to be considered on the basis of the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. In the separate judgment the punishment awarded to Valsamma, of reversion, was interfered with by the learned Single Judge on the sole ground of there being no prior sanction from the educational authorities. There is no scope for any further award of punishment now, for reason of Valsamma having retired.