Jose Idicula vs The State Of Kerala Represented By ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8983 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.21224 OF 2020(C)


PETITIONER:

               JOSE IDICULA, AGED 55 YEARS
               SON OF K.I.EASO, PRINCIPAL-IN CHARGE,
               S H HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MYLAPRA,
               PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 678.

               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,
               JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

      3        THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER
               SECONDARY EDUCATION, CHENGANNUR,
               ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 121.

      4        THE MANAGER, SH HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
               MYLAPRA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 678.

               BY SRI.P.M.MANOJ-SR.GP.

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 21224/20                       2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18th day of March 2021

The petitioner says that he is presently working as the

Principal-in-charge of 'SH Higher Secondary School', Pathanamthitta

and that he entered service as an Upper Primary School Teacher on

25.06.1997.

2. He says that, later, he was promoted as a High School

Teacher on 15.07.2002 and that he became the Headmaster of the

School on 01.06.2017.

3. The petitioner submits that when the vacancy of Principal

arose in the School, he staked claim, which was accepted by the

Manager, leading to his appointment, but that it was rejected through

Exhibit P3 order of the third respondent - Regional Deputy Director of

Higher Secondary Education (RDD), stating that he had earlier

relinquished his right to be a Higher Secondary School Teacher

(English) in the school, when the vacancy had arisen.

4. The petitioner says that even though he had relinquished

his right to be appointed as a Higher Secondary School Teacher on an

earlier occasion, it does not mean that his right to be the Principal

can be defeated on account of this reason, particularly because he is

the only teacher available in the school with twelve year teaching

experience, which is mandatory. The petitioner relies on Jayaraj v.

State of Kerala (2016 (2) KLT 200), as also on Exhibit P9 judgment

of this Court in support of his case.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions

with respect to the law asserting that it has been declared, through

the afore judgments, that when there are no qualified Higher

Secondary School Teachers available for appointment, the

Headmaster of the school is eligible to be appointed as the Principal

by 'by transfer' and the mere fact that there is no work load to

accommodate him would be of no consequence. She submits that this

has been emphatically declared in Jayaraj (supra) and therefore, that

the subsequent order of the Government, namely Exhibit P5(a),

confirming Exhibit P3 order of the RDD, is without legs to stand on.

She, therefore, prays that this writ petition be allowed and Exhibits

P3 and P5(a) be set aside, thus directing the respondents to approve

the petitioner's appointment as the Principal, as per the initial order

issued by the Manager.

6. The learned Senior Government Pleader conceded that

Exhibit P5(a) has been issued solely because there is no post of

Higher Secondary School Teacher (English) available in the school

and since the promotion of the petitioner as its Principal would have

to create a supernumerary post. However, to a pointed question, he

conceded that in view of the conclusive ratio in Jayaraj (supra), which

has been followed by this Court in Exhibit P9, this objection may not

remain tenable, particularly when it has been affirmatively declared

that merely on account of lack of sufficient work load, the legitimate

right of a person to be appointed as the Principal cannot be denied,

especially when he/she is only eligible for being so appointed.

7. When I consider the afore submissions and examine

Jayaraj (supra) as also the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.

17796/2020 and connected matter, it is evident that the issues

impelled in this writ petition have already been answered by this

Court in favour of the petitioner and this is also conceded by the

learned Senior Government Pleader. I do not, therefore, think that it

is required for me to say anything further with respect to the

assertions of the petitioner against Exhibits P3 and P5(a) orders.

8. Since these orders have declined approval to the

petitioner's appointment as the Principal solely on account of the fact

that the school does not have a post of HSST (English) and for no

other, I allow this writ petition and set aside Exhibits P3 and P5(a)

orders; consequently directing the third respondent - RDD to

reconsider the proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment

as the Principal and issue appropriate orders thereon, as

expeditiously as possible, but not later than two weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, once the afore order is issued, the petitioner

will also be granted all eligible benefits with respect to the said post

without any avoidable delay thereafter.

Sd/-

Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv

APPENDIX PETITIONER'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/C7/2009/RDD/CNGR DATED 09.08.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 19.08.2019.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.24258/ 2019 DATED 05.09.2019.

EXHIBIT P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(Rt)NO.2046/2020/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.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.24186/ 2020 DATED 02.02.2021

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE