P.V.HARIKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner joined service of the Edayur S.V.A Lower Primary School, Edayur North, Kuttipuram, Malappuram District as Lower Primary School Assistant with effect from 01.06.1998, which was approved from the date of his appointment. Petitioner has also passed the tests in Kerala Education Act and Rules as well as the Accounts Test Lower conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission, on 21.01.2011. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P11 order passed by the State Government dated 12.09.2012, whereby the order passed by the Manager of the school was upheld and the Revision filed by the petitioner was rejected, stating that petitioner is not entitled to be appointed as the Headmaster of the school, overlooking the seniority of the 4th respondent, Smt. N.R. Sailaja, and for other related and consequential reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) According to the petitioner, on the retirement of the then Headmistress viz., Smt. Mariyamma on 30.04.2006, the Manager appointed the 4th respondent to the post on 01.05.2006. However, the 4 th respondent relinquished the said post on 30.04.2009, and she was continuing as L.P.S.A. The Manager then appointed one K. Hamza with effect from 01.05.2009 as the teacher in charge of the Headmaster, who, according to the petitioner, is not qualified. Case of the petitioner is that, petitioner became qualified on 21.01.2011, and thereupon, petitioner staked a claim to be appointed as Headmaster. However, the claim so raised by the petitioner to the authorities was declined up to the State Government. Anyhow, on 22.07.2015, petitioner secured Government employment. Therefore, now petitioner is confining the benefits entitled to be secured up to 21.07.2015. Anyhow, from 15.07.2011, the 4th respondent was again appointed as the Headmistress of the school. The said appointment was challenged by the petitioner before the educational authorities by filing appeals and revision, but the same were also dismissed by the statutory authorities including the State Government. These are the basic background facts put forth by the petitioner seeking interference with Ext.P11 order passed by the State Government in the revision filed by the petitioner.

(3.) A counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner, and justifying the stand adopted by the State Government in view of Rule 44(1) of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules (K.E.R.), and it is also submitted that the stand adopted by the Managements is correct, since, even according to the petitioner, 4th respondent is the senior-most teacher available in the school for appointment.