U.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 6280 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6280 Ker
Judgement Date : 22 February, 2021

Kerala High Court

U.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2021

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

                               &

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

  MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WA.No.2330 OF 2016

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 25801/2012 DATED 08-04-2016
                   OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT/PETITIOER:

            U.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 56 YEARS
            LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
            NADUVANNOOR SOUTH,
            A.M. U.P SCHOOL, NADUVANNUR P.O.,
            KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, 673 614

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
            SRI.ANIL ABEY JOSE

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDETS:

      1     STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
            GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

      2     THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
            THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE 673 014.

      3     THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
            PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE 673 525.

      4     THE MANAGER
            NADUVANNUR SOUTH, AMUP SCHOOL,
            NADUVANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 616.

      5     SRI.P.P.MURALI
            HEADMASTER, NADUVANNUR SOUTH AMUP SCHOOL,
            NADUVANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 616
            RESIDING AT PATINHARE PALLITIL HOUSE
                              :2:
WA.No.2330 OF 2016



            ORAVIL P.O., NADUVANNUR (VIA)
            KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 614.

            R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J VARGHESE, SR.
            R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.C SASIDHARAN (BY ORDER)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-02-
2021, THE COURT ON 22-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 :3:
WA.No.2330 OF 2016




                                                    "C.R."

                           JUDGMENT

Gopinath, J.

The appellant, who was the senior-most Lower Primary

School Assistant in the Naduvannur South AMUP School,

Naduvannur, at the time when a vacancy of Headmaster had

arisen, was aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the 5 th

respondent (P.P.Murali) as the Headmaster. It is not disputed

that the appellant (writ petitioner) is Senior to the aforesaid

P.P.Murali.

2. The Naduvannur South AMUP School is a minority

educational institution and its status as such is not challenged.

However, it is the case of the appellant (writ petitioner) that the

Manager, in selecting P.P Murali, failed to follow the fair

procedure contemplated in the judgment of a Full Bench of this

Court in Kurian Lizy v. State of Kerala [(2006) 4 KLT

WA.No.2330 OF 2016

264]. The said contention was specifically considered by the

educational authorities and found against the appellant (writ

petitioner). We notice that though the appellant (writ petitioner)

relies on Ext.P11 to contend that there is nothing on record to

show that the procedure contemplated in Kurian Lizy (supra)

had been followed by the Manager, Ext.R4 (g) dated 06.12.2012

indicates that an enquiry by the Deputy Director of Education

confirmed that the procedure contemplated by Kurian Lizy

(Supra) was indeed followed by the Manager.

3. The learned Single Judge has considered the

contentions of the appellant (writ petitioner) in substantial detail

and has found that the right of a minority educational institution

to appoint a Headmaster of their choice is well settled. We would,

in this regard, refer to the illuminating words of M.S Menon C.J

speaking for the Full Bench in Rt. Rev. Aldo Maria Patroni

V. E.C. Kesavan And Others; 1964 KLT 791 (F.B.) where an

almost identical issue was considered. It was held: -

WA.No.2330 OF 2016

"14. The post of the headmaster is of pivotal importance in the life of a school. Around him, wheels the tone and temper of the institution; on him depends the continuity of its traditions, the maintenance of discipline and the efficiency of its teaching. The right to choose the headmaster is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer a school; and we must hold that the imposition of any trammel thereon except to the extent of prescribing the requisite qualifications and experience cannot but be considered as a violation of the right guaranteed by Art.30 (1) of the Constitution. To hold otherwise will be to make the right "a teasing illusion, a promise of unreality"."

Therefore, the right, perhaps absolute, of the minority institution

to appoint a Headmaster of its choice cannot be disputed.

4. The learned Single Judge also noticed, after referring

to Kurian Lizy (Supra), that the law laid down therein was that

WA.No.2330 OF 2016

Rule 44(1) of Chapter XIV - A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959,

would have no control over the rights conferred under Article

30(1) of the Constitution of India The learned Judge held that the

Full Bench in Kurian Lizy (Supra) only held that the Manager

will have to evolve a fair procedure for selection of the

Headmaster. The learned Single Judge concluded that there is

nothing to suggest that a fair procedure had not been adopted by