LUCIAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First petitioner was appointed on 20-6-1963 as High School Assistant (Physical Science) in the St.Mary's Girls High School, Ernakulam. She was relieved on 1-6-1964 due to want of training qualification. First petitioner then took B.Ed degree in April, 1969. Thereupon she was appointed as H.S.A, in the St Joseph's Girls High School, Karukutty. She has got continuous service from 5-5-1970 onwards. She was then appointed as Headmistress in the St. Joseph's Upper Primary School on 1-6-1989. The said appointment has not been approved by the Educational Authorities. Hence this original petition inter alia praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P2 and P4 orders.

(2.) Ext. P2 is copy of letter No.83482/JI/88/G/Edn. dated 21-3-1989 issued by the Government to the Director of Public Instruction. That deals with the guidelines for the approval of the appointments of Headmasters in aided schools. It was in conformity with the directions contained in that order Ext. P4 happened to be issued by the District Educational Officer declining the approval of the appointment of the first petitioner. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submit that the schools run by the second petitioner, Corporate Educational Agency are established by a minority community entitled to the protection under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. The school being an institution run by a minority community second petitioner can appoint any teacher having the required qualification as per the Rules as Headmaster. That appointment has to be approved by the authorities. They are to verify the qualifications of the appointee. If they satisfy the qualification prescribed by the Rules the appointment should be approved. Since the first petitioner has got the required qualification as per R.45 of Chapter XIV A K.E.R, she is entitled to be appointed Headmistress of the school and the Educational Authorities are not justified in refusing to grant the approval relying on Ext. P2 communication. In this view it was submitted that the action taken by respondents in refusing to approve the appointment of the first petitioner has to be quashed.

(3.) When this petition came up for admission on 23-10-1989 a copy of the same was served on the learned Government pleader. On behalf of the third respondent, the District Educational Officer a counter affidavit has been filed. The contentions taken therein are that the approval of the appointment of the first petitioner as Headmistress was declined by virtue of the guidelines contained in Ext. P2 as also on the ground that the said appointment was contrary to the provisions contained in R.45 of Chapter XIV A K.E.R. First petitioner was not a member of the staff of the Upper Primary School. She was an H.S.A. Only a graduate teacher with B.Ed in the staff of an Upper Primary School can claim the post of headmaster of that Upper Primary School, if that teacher has got half of the total service of the seniormost under-graduate teacher of the School. R.45 of Chapter XIV A does not enable the Manager to appoint a H.S.A, in the service of another school as Headmaster of the Upper Primary School. No H.S.A, has got right to be appointed as Headmaster of an Upper Primary School. The appointment of H.S.A, as Headmaster of an Upper Primary School is contrary to the provisions contained in R.44 and 45 of Chapter XIV A K.E.R.