Kerala High Court
Dileep R vs State Of Kerala on 2 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.17796 OF 2020(Y)
PETITIONER:
DILEEP R, PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE,
HSST (MATHEMATICS), NETAJI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PRAMADOM, MALLASSERY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, G.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
HIGHER SECONDARY WING, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,
SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
CHENGANNUR-689 121.
4 MANAGER, NETAJI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PRAMADOM,
MALLASSERY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 646.
5 K. JAYAKUMAR, HEADMASTER,
NETAJI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PRAMADOM,
MALLASSERY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 646.
BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
SRI.P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).24186/2020(W), THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.24186 OF 2020(W)
PETITIONER:
JAYAKUMAR K, AGED 54 YEARS,
SON OF O.N. KRISHNA KURUP, PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE,
NETAJI HSS, PRAMADOM, P.O. MALLASSERY,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 646.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
ANNEX II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
HIGHER SECONDARY WING, SANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER
SECONDARY EDUCATION,
CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 121.
4 THE MANAGER, NETAJI HSS, PRAMADOM, P.O.
MALLASSERY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 646.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.MANOJ, SR.GP
DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 02.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).17796/2020(Y), THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020
-3-
JUDGMENT
[ WP(C)No.17796/2020, WP(C)No.24186/2020 ]
Dated this the 2nd day of February 2021
These two writ petitions have been
heard together on account of the analogous
nature of the factual circumstances
presented and since the reliefs to be
granted in one, will certainly affect the
reliefs to be granted in the other.
2. W.P.(C)No.24186 of 2020 has been
filed by Sri.K.Jayakumar, who is stated to
be the Headmaster of "Netaji Higher
Secondary School", Pramadom,
Pathanamthitta, and he asserts that he is
fully entitled to be appointed as the
Principal of the said School. According to
him, even though he had staked his claim
before the competent educational
Authorities, Government has, through
WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020
Ext.P5(a) order dated 18.06.2020, declined
the request for 'by-transfer appointment'
as the Principal of the Higher Secondary
School, solely for the reason that there is
no workload in the Higher Secondary Section
for accommodating him. Sri.K.Jayakumar
says that this finding of the Government is
contrary to the declaration of law by this
Court in Jayaraj v. State of Kerala
[2016(2) KLT 200] and prays that this order
be set aside and the Educational
Authorities be directed to approve him as
the Principal of the Higher Secondary
School.
3. While so, it appears that the
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.17796 of 2020,
Sri.R.Dileep - who is the senior most
Higher Secondary School Teacher in the
School - was appointed as its Principal-in-
Charge, pending consideration of
WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020
Sri.K.Jayakumar's claim, but the Government
finally issued Ext.P6 order (which is the
same as Ext.P5(a) in W.P.(C)No.24186 of
2020), ordering Sri.K.Jayakumar to be
appointed as the Principal-in-
Charge, though he has been found not
eligible to be appointed as the Principal.
Sri.R.Dileep contends that Ext.P6 is
improper, since it has been issued without
hearing him and since Sri.Jayakumar - being
already found not eligible to be appointed
as the Principal - could not have been then
directed to be made the Principal-in-
Charge. Sri.R.Dileep, therefore, prays
that Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.17796 of 2020 be
set aside and he be allowed to continue as
the Principal-in-Charge.
4. I have considered the rival
submissions of the parties, as argued by
their learned counsel Sri.M.Sajjad and
WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020
Dr.George Abraham, appearing for
Sri.K.Jayakumar and Sri.R.Dileep
respectively, as also that of the learned
Senior Government Pleader - Sri.P.M.Manoj.
5. The undisputed fact in this case
is that Sri.K.Jayakuamar is the Headmaster
of the High School division of the School;
while Sri.R.Dileep is the senior most
Higher Secondary School Teacher in the same
School. Both of them stake claim to the
post of Principal.
6. The claim of Sri.K.Jayakumar has
been rejected by the Government, solely
because his accommodation in the Higher
Secondary level is not possible for want of
sufficient workload. Sri.R.Dieep, on the
other hand, had been appointed as the
Principal-in-Charge, since the claim of
Sri.K.Jayakumar had been found untenable.
7. However, through the impugned
WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020
order in these two cases, even though the
Government has found that Sri.K.Jayakumar
is not eligible to be appointed as the
Principal of the School on account of the
aforementioned reason, it has still
directed that he be made its Principal-in-
Charge.
8. The singular issue pertinent in
this case is whether Sri.K.Jayakumar is
entitled to be the Principal of the School
and whether the ratio in Jayaraj(supra)
would apply to the facts presented, so as
to enable him to be appointed so. If
Sri.K.Jayakumar is so found eligible, then
naturally the claim of Sri.R.Dileep, to
continue as the Principal-in-charge, would
have no legs to stand on.
9. Ex facie and admittedly, the facts
of this case certainly make the
declarations in Jayaraj (supra) apply in
WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020
full force; but it is argued by Dr.George
Abraham, learned counsel appearing for
Sri.R.Dileep, that an appeal has been
preferred against another judgment in W.P.
(C)No.7835/2016, which had been delivered
following Jayaraj (supra), and that the
same is pending consideration before a
learned Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.2373/2019. Dr.George Abraham asserts
that, as is evident from Ext.P8 produced in
W.P.(C)No.17796/2020, the learned Division
Bench has ordered that the status quo be
maintained as far as that case is
concerned.
10. Even though the afore submissions
of Dr.George Abraham is accurate, since
Ext.P8 order certainly directs the parties
involved in the said case to maintain
status quo, there are, concededly no
observations therein that Jayaraj (supra)
WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020
is either stayed or that it should not be
followed.
11. Obviously, therefore, Ext.P8 order
of status quo can be only construed as
having been ordered by the learned Division
Bench noticing particular factual
circumstances involved in that case and the
said order cannot apply ad rem.
I am therefore, of the firm view that
Sri.K.Jayakumar - the petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.24186 of 2020, is certainly entitled
to the benefits as declared by this Court
in Jayaraj (supra); and am, resultantly, of
the opinion that the Government must issue
appropriate orders in terms of the
declarations therein.
In the afore circumstances, I set aside
Ext.P5(a) in W.P.(C)No.24186/2020 (which is
the same as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.17796/2020)
and direct the Manager of "Netaji Higher
WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020
Secondary School" to appoint
Sri.K.Jayakumar - petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.24186/2020 as its Principal within a
period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, with a
resultant direction to him to forward the
same to the Regional Deputy Director of
Higher Secondary Education, Alappuzha, for
approval; which shall then be considered by
the said Authority in terms of law without
any further delay thereafter, but not later
than two months from the date on which the
said proposal reaches him.
I make it clear that since I have
granted the afore benefit to
Sri.K.Jayakumar based on Jayaraj (supra),
if any modification is made to said
judgment through a process known to law,
then certainly, Sri.R.Dileep will be at
liberty to agitate his claim afresh in
WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020
terms of the resultant declarations, if
any, in future.
These writ petitions are thus
ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
akv/rp
WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17796/2020
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATED
25/05/2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REGIONAL
DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATED 23/06/2018.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELINQUISHMENT LETTER
APPROVED BY THE MANAGER DATED
21/12/2017.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REGIONAL
DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATED 09/08/2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE WPC NO.24463/2019
FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(RT)
NO.2048/2020/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT
DATED 18/06/2020.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20TH AUGUST
2020.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
28/11/2019 IN WA NO.2373/2019.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
19948/2013 DATED 25.2.2016
EXHIBIT R5 B TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO-
5014/2019/G.EDN DATED 21.11.2019
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24186/2020
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
RDD HSE, CHENGANNUR DATED 04.06.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.17095/2019 DATED 24.06.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT VIDE
NO.5533/C7/2019/RDD/CNGR DATED
09.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
GOVERNMENT DATED 20.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.24463/2019 DATED 05.09.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE
GO(RT)NO.2048/2020/G.EDN DATED
18.06.2020.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN
2016(2) KLT 200 DATED 25.02.2016.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE
GO(RT)NO.5014/2019/G.EDN DATED
21.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE
GO(RT)NO.1260/2019/G.EDN DATED
01.04.2019.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
