Kerala High Court
Salini.G vs Head Teacher on 18 July, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
1
W.A.No.530 of 2025
2025:KER:53698
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 530 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.4913 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
SALINI G., AGED 40 YEARS, SALINI VILASAM, OZHUKUPARA,
POLACHIRA, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691334
BY ADVS.SHRI.BHARATH MOHAN
SMT.TELLMY JOLLY
SRI.SABU PULLAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT 2 AND 1:
1 HEAD TEACHER, AGED 51 YEARS, SYS UP SCHOOL, POLACHIRA,
CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM, ANULOMA YADAV.P.I, W/O.BIMAL RAJ,
AGED 51 YEARS, SANTHI BHAVAN, POLACHIRA, CHATHANNOOR,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691334
2 MANAGER, SYS UP SCHOOL, POLACHIRA, CHATHANNOOR,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691334
3 A E O, CHATHANNOOR
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER,
CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691334
BY ADV SMT.T.S. SREEKUTTY
SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.A.No.530 of 2025
2025:KER:53698
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The 3rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.4913 of 2025 has filed this
writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated
07.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition,
which was one filed by the 1st respondent herein-petitioner, who
is the Head Teacher of SYS UP School, invoking the writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 order dated
31.01.2025 of the 1st respondent Assistant Educational Officer.
Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge
dated 07.03.2025 in W.P.(C)No.4913 of 2025 read thus;
"8. Ext.P1 produced by the petitioner would indicate that
there were issues relating to the conduct of the 3 rd
respondent. There were complaints regarding the
discharge of duties by the 3rd respondent. Decisions taken
in Ext.P1 would indicate that there were certain lacuna in
Noon Feeding Scheme and the official duties discharged by
the 3rd respondent. Ext.P1 is dated 28.01.2025. The
pleadings would indicate that the 3rd respondent had
submitted Ext.P2 resignation letter on 28.01.2025. Ext.P3
proceedings of the Noon Feeding Committee would show
that the Committee met on the same date and has decided
2025:KER:53698
to accept the resignation of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd
respondent would contend that the acceptance of the
resignation was not communicated to the petitioner.
9. However, on the basis of a complaint preferred by the
3rd respondent, the Assistant Educational Officer convened
a meeting as per Ext.P4 and passed Ext.P5 order. By
Ext.P5 order, the petitioner is directed to reinstate the 3 rd
respondent in service. Ext.P5 goes on the premise that the
resignation letter submitted by the 3rd respondent was
under threat. The reasons advanced by the Assistant
Educational Officer for passing Ext.P5 order is that the 3rd
respondent does not have any landed property or house
and that she is residing in a rented house and also she has
to take care of the education of her child.
10. When the conduct of the 3rd respondent itself is of an
issue to the School, a decision was taken by the Noon
Feeding Committee as per Ext.P1. When the 3rd
respondent did not stick to the decisions taken as per
Ext.P1, the 3rd respondent herself has submitted Ext.P2
resignation. There is nothing on record to come to a
conclusion that Ext.P2 resignation was submitted under
pressure. It is not discernible from Ext.P5 as to how the
Assistant Educational Officer came to a conclusion that the
resignation was submitted under pressure. The Noon
Feeding Committee of the School has accepted the
resignation and has decided to appoint another person as
Cook. In the afore circumstances, I find that Ext.P5 order
passed by the Assistant Educational Officer cannot stand
the scrutiny of law. Ext.P5 is set aside."
2025:KER:53698
2. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned
Single Judge, the appellant-3rd respondent has filed this writ
appeal. One of the contentions raised in the writ appeal is that
Ext.P5 order dated 31.01.2025 of the Assistant Educational
Officer is an order against which a statutory appeal is provided
before the District Educational Officer and as such, the writ
petitioner was not justified in invoking the writ jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging
the said order.
3. On 25.03.2025, when this writ appeal came up for
admission, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following
order;
"There shall be direction to the Assistant Educational
Officer (AEO) to take a decision on the alleged resignation
of the appellant. The AEO shall state before this Court
whether approval has been granted for the acceptance of
the appellant's resignation by the Noon Feeding
Committee."
4. The order dated 25.03.2025 was followed by another
order dated 09.04.2025, which reads thus;
"2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the
Assistant Educational Officer (AEO) so far has not
approved the alleged resignation of the appellant.
3. In the meanwhile, we direct the AEO to take a decision
2025:KER:53698
in regard to the approval on the alleged resignation of the
appellant after hearing the appellant, respondents, and
also any other appointee in the matter, within a period of
four weeks."
5. On 22.05.2025, when this writ appeal came up for
consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted
that pursuant to the directions contained in the order of this
Court dated 25.03.2025, a decision has already been taken by
the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO) on the alleged
resignation of the appellant. The learned Government Pleader
sought time to produce a copy of that order.
6. Along with a memo dated 22.05.2025 of the learned
Senior Government Pleader, a copy of the order dated
07.05.2025 of the Assistant Educational Officer is placed on
record. The said order is in favour of the appellant.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-3rd
respondent, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ
petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and also
the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 3rd respondent-
Assistant Educational Officer.
8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the appellant-3rd respondent, the learned counsel for
2025:KER:53698
respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Senior Government
Pleader for the 3rd respondent-Assistant Educational Officer
would submit that the order dated 07.05.2025 of the Assistant
Educational Officer, issued pursuant to the direction contained in
the order of this Court dated 09.04.2025 in this writ appeal is
under challenge in a fresh writ petition filed by respondents 1
and 2 herein as W.P.(C)No.20874 of 2025.
9. The submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the aforesaid order dated 07.05.2025 passed by
the Assistant Educational Officer is also not an order which can
be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, in view of the statutory remedy provided
under the Kerala Education Rules. Though rival contentions on
the above aspect have been raised at the Bar, we are of the view
that the above legal issue has to be raised in W.P.(C)No.20874 of
2025, which is pending before the learned Single Judge, in which
the order dated 07.05.2025 of the Assistant Educational Officer
is under challenge.
Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, we
deem it appropriate to close this writ appeal, since pursuant to
the order of this Court dated 09.04.2025, the Assistant
2025:KER:53698
Educational Officer has already passed an order dated
07.05.2025, which is under challenge in W.P.(C)No.20874 of
2025, filed by respondents 1 and 2. The legal and factual
contentions raised by the appellant and respondents 1 and 2 are
left open to be raised before the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C)No.20874 of 2025.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
AV
2025:KER:53698
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
APPELLANT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
30.01.2025
Annexure II A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
CIRCULAR NMA (1)- 10706/2024/DGE DATED
09.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL
EDUCATION
