Kerala High Court
Vias Bhat.C vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 4 November, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
2025:KER:82644
W.A.No.427 of 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WA NO. 427 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2025 IN WP(C)NO.22357 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
VIAS BHAT.C
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.SHRI.SANKARANARAYANAN EMBRATHIRI, HIGH SCHOOL
TEACHER (SOCIAL SCIENCE), ZAINUDHEEN MEMORIAL
HIGH SCHOOL, POOLAMANGALAM, PUNNATHALA,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676552
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR
SMT.BEA MARY BENNY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
2025:KER:82644
W.A.No.427 of 2025 2
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
5 MANAGER,
ZAINUDHEEN MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL (DISTRICT
EDUCATIONAL OFFICER), TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
6 SMT.JAYASREE C.P,
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (PHYSICAL SCIENCE),
ZAINUDHEEN MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, POOLAMANGALAM,
PUNNATHALA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676552
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP FOR R1 TO R5
SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R6.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.09.2025, THE COURT ON 04.11.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:82644
W.A.No.427 of 2025 3
"C.R"
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.22357 of 2024,
which was one filed invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of
certiorari to quash Ext.P9 communication dated 15.06.2024
issued by the 4th respondent District Educational Officer, Tirur; and
a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5 to appoint
him as the Headmaster in the High School section of Zainudheen
Memorial Higher Secondary School (ZMHSS), Poolamangalam in
Malappuram District, in the vacancy that arose with effect from
01.06.2024.
2. On 17.08.1994, the appellant-petitioner was appointed
as a High School Assistant (Social Science) at Zainudheen
Memorial High School, Poolamangalam. The post of High School
Assistant (HSA) was redesignated as High School Teacher (HST),
based on the recommendation made by the 10th Pay Revision
Commission in its report dated 10.07.2015. Going by the
averments in the writ petition, the petitioner has continuous
2025:KER:82644
regular service with effect from 05.06.1995. His initial service with
effect from 17.08.1994, as well as continuous regular service from
05.06.1995, were approved by the 4th respondent District
Educational Officer, Tirur.
2.1. While continuing at ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, the post
held by the petitioner was reduced in the staff fixation order for
the academic year 2015-16. As a protected teacher, the petitioner
was initially deployed as a Cluster Resource Centre Coordinator.
Later, he was recalled to the parent school, and he rejoined duty
on 06.08.2019, due to the retirement of Sri. George A.J., HST
(Maths) on 31.05.2019, who was adjusted to HST (English) during
the academic year 2018-19. In the staff fixation for the academic
year 2019-20, the post held by the petitioner was reduced, and
he was deployed as a protected teacher, first at Government
Higher Secondary School, Othukkungal. On 06.08.2019, he was
transferred to the Block Resource Centre (BRC), Tirur. Later, he
was deployed as HST (SS) in Kunhimon Haji Memorial Higher
Secondary School (KHMHSS), Alathiyoor.
2.2. Smt. Khadeeja P., HST (SS) in ZMHSS, Poolamangalam,
retired from service on 30.04.2024. Smt. Pushpalatha V.R., the
2025:KER:82644
Headmistress of the said school, also retired from service on
31.05.2024. The petitioner, who possesses the required graduate
service as provided under Rule 44A Chapter XIVA of Kerala
Education Rules (KER) and test-qualified, submitted Ext.P1
representation dated 16.09.2023 before the 2nd respondent
Director of General Education, with a request to post him in the
parent school, in the retirement vacancy of Smt. Khadeeja P., HST
(SS), and then consider his claim for appointment as Headmaster
of the school. On receipt of Ext.P1, the 2nd respondent issued
Ext.P2 reply dated 14.12.2023, pointing out that the petitioner
has to make a request, well in advance, before the 3rd respondent
Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram, through the Manager
of ZMHSS, Poolamangalam.
2.3. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation dated
07.06.2024 before the 4th respondent District Educational Officer,
Tirur, who is functioning as the Manager of ZMHSS,
Poolamangalam. He has also submitted Ext.P4 representation
dated 07.06.2024 before the 3rd respondent Deputy Director of
Education, through the 4th respondent District Educational Officer.
The 4th respondent District Educational Officer, by Ext.P5
2025:KER:82644
communication dated 17.04.2024, informed the petitioner that
the claim for appointment to the post of Headmaster has to be
considered as per the seniority list prepared under the provisions
of Rule 34(a) and (b), Chapter XIVA of KER.
2.4. By Ext.P6 order dated 29.05.2024 of the 3rd respondent
Deputy Director of Education, protected teachers in Malappuram
District, including the petitioner, were recalled to their parent
schools, during the academic year 2024-25. The petitioner was
recalled to ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, in the retirement vacancy of
Smt. Khadeeja P., HST (SS) in ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, who
retired from service on 30.04.2024. Though Ext.P6 order is dated
29.05.2024, the 3rd respondent Deputy Director of Education
signed the said order only on 03.06.2024. Based on Ext.P6 order,
the petitioner was relieved from KHMHSS, Alathiyoor, on
03.06.2024 AN, and he rejoined the parent school, i.e., ZMHSS,
Poolamangalam, on 04.06.2024 FN. The said fact is evident from
Ext.P7 communication dated 04.06.2024 of the Headmaster in the
High School section of ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, addressed to the
3rd respondent Deputy Director of Education.
2.5. On the retirement of Smt. Pushpalatha V.R., on
2025:KER:82644
attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2024, the 4 th
respondent District Educational Officer, who is functioning as the
Manager of ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, placed the 6th respondent,
who was an HST (Physical Science), as the Headmaster-in-charge
in the High School Section of that school. The petitioner, on
rejoining duty in the parent school on 04.06.2024, submitted
Ext.P8 representation dated 09.06.2024 before the 4th respondent
District Educational Officer, to enter his name in all the records of
ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, and to appoint him as the Headmaster
in the High School Section of that school, in the vacancy that arose
from 01.06.2024.
2.6. On receipt of Ext.P8 representation, the 4th respondent
issued Ext.P9 communication dated 15.06.2024, whereby the
petitioner was informed that he cannot be considered for
appointment as Headmaster in the High School Section of ZMHSS,
Poolamangalam, as his name was not included in the seniority list
of the teachers in that school, as on 01.01.2024. Further, he has
not rejoined the parent school on 01.06.2024. The document
marked as Ext.P10 is a copy of a Government order dated
08.01.2024 issued by the 1st respondent regarding online
2025:KER:82644
submission of the seniority list of teachers in aided schools, for
approval. Ext.P11 is a copy of the circular dated 20.02.2024 issued
by the 2nd respondent Director of General Education, based on
Ext.P10 Government order.
3. On 23.07.2024, when W.P.(C)No.22357 of 2024 came
up for admission, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order
to the effect that approval for the appointment of the 6 th
respondent shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
4. The 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated
04.07.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition,
producing therewith Exts.R6(a) to R6(c) documents, contending
inter alia that as on the date of occurrence of vacancy, i.e.,
01.06.2024, the petitioner was not on the rolls of ZMHSS,
Poolamangalam, and he joined duty in the parent school only on
04.06.2024, on being relieved from the deployed school, i.e.,
KHMHSS, Alathiyoor, on 03.06.2024. As per Ext.P10 Government
order and Ext.P11 circular, protected teachers cannot be included
in the seniority list of the parent school, which is being prepared
as on 1st January of the year, as stipulated in Note (ii) to Rule 35,
Chapter XIVA of KER.
2025:KER:82644
5. The 4th respondent District Educational Officer filed a
counter affidavit dated 19.11.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for
in the writ petition, contending inter alia that the appointment of
the 6th respondent as Headmaster in the High School section of
ZMHSS, Poolamangalam was made strictly in accordance with the
seniority list prepared and maintained under Rule 34(a) and (b),
Chapter XIVA of KER. The petitioner was not included in the final
approved seniority list of 2023 and also in the provisionally
approved seniority list of 2024, due to loss of post and his
deployment in another school. Based on Ext.P6 order of the 3 rd
respondent Deputy Director of Education, the petitioner was
recalled to the parent school. Accordingly, he was relieved from
KHMHSS, Alathiyoor, and rejoined as HST (SS) at ZMHSS,
Poolamangalam, on 04.06.2024. The vacancy of Headmaster in
the High School section of ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, was effective
from 01.06.2024. At that time, the petitioner was working at
KHMHSS, Alathiyoor. In the counter affidavit, the 4 th respondent
has referred to Ext.P10 Government order dated 08.01.2024 and
Ext.P11 circular dated 20.02.2024 of the 2nd respondent Director
of General Education, and relied on the decision of a Full Bench of
2025:KER:82644
this Court in Abraham A.G. and others v. State of Kerala and
others [2009 (3) KLT 659].
6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated
11.01.2025 to the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent and
that filed by the 6th respondent, producing therewith Ext.P12
Government order dated 23.07.2010, whereby a proviso was
added to Rule 37(1), Chapter XIVA KER, to reckon for seniority,
the entire service rendered by the teacher in both the parent
school and the other school, on re-appointment to the parent
school.
7. After considering the pleadings and materials on record
and also the submissions made at the Bar, the learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition by the judgment dated
29.01.2025. Paragraphs 17, 18 and the last paragraph of that
judgment, read thus;
"17. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner was not included
in the seniority list which was drawn as on 01.01.2024.
Ext.P6 order of redeployment was passed only on
29.05.2024. Even as per the Rules, the supplementary list
during a school year is liable to be sent before 31st May of
every year. The competent authority shall approve the list
provisionally by 30th June and finally by 31st August every
2025:KER:82644
year. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's name was not
in the seniority list of the school as on 01.01.2024 or as on
31.05.2024.
18. Furthermore, the petitioner was not physically working
in the parent School as on the date of occurrence of vacancy.
Ext.P7 relieving order indicates that the petitioner was
relieved from the deployed school only on 03.06.2024. In
the circumstances, the petitioner cannot aspire to claim the
post of Headmaster which arose in the parent school. I do
not find any illegality in Ext.P9.
The writ petition is without any merit and it is dismissed."
8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.01.2025
of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.22357 of 2024, the
appellant-petitioner is before this Court in this writ appeal,
invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court
Act, 1958.
9. On 06.03.2025, when the writ appeal came up for
admission, the Division Bench ordered that approval to the
appointment of the 6th respondent will be subject to the outcome
of the writ appeal. Thereafter, on 10.04.2025, it was ordered that,
if the appellant is being retrenched for want of strength, that shall
not be done without orders from this Court.
2025:KER:82644
10. On 05.06.2025, when the writ appeal came up for
consideration, it was admitted on file. The learned Senior
Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 4 and notice
was ordered to the 5th respondent. The 6th respondent entered
appearance through counsel. By the order dated 05.06.2025, it
was made clear that the interim order granted by the Division
Bench on 06.03.2025 shall continue to be in force.
11. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant-petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for
respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned counsel for the 6th
respondent.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is one
rendered without properly appreciating the legal and factual
contentions raised by the petitioner. When the vacancy of HST
(SS) occurred in the parent school, i.e., ZMHSS, Poolamangalam,
on 01.05.2024, due to the retirement of Smt. Khadeeja P., HST
(SS), on 30.04.2024, the appellant is the sole claimant for that
post under Rule 51A, Chapter XIVA of KER. There was no legal
impediment in recalling a protected teacher to his parent school
2025:KER:82644
during summer vacation, as protected teachers are drawing their
salary throughout their service, from the parent school. In support
of the said contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on
Annexure A order dated 04.04.2017 issued by the Block
Programme Officer, Block Resource Centre, Adoor, relieving Smt.
Mini R., another protected teacher of ZMHSS, Poolamangalam,
with effect from 04.04.2017, based on the order passed by the 3rd
respondent Deputy Director of Education, for rejoining the parent
school. Though Ext.P6 order of the 3rd respondent is dated
29.05.2024, the said order was signed only on 03.06.2024. The
3rd respondent Deputy Director of Education and the 4th
respondent District Educational Officer delayed the issuance of
Ext.P6 order, to enable the 6th respondent to get an appointment
as the Headmaster in the High School section of ZMHSS,
Poolamangalam, overlooking the claim of the appellant. The
learned counsel further contended that, on re-appointment as HST
(SS) in the parent school, in the vacancy that arose due to the
retirement of Smt. Khadeeja P., the appellant is entitled to reckon
his entire period of service for seniority, in view of the proviso to
sub-rule (1) of Rule 37, Chapter XIVA of KER.
2025:KER:82644
13. The learned Senior Government Pleader for
respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned counsel for the 6th
respondent contended that the reasoning of the learned Single
Judge in the impugned judgment is neither perverse nor patently
illegal, warranting interference in this intra-court appeal. In the
said judgment, the learned Single Judge has taken note of the
statutory requirements of Rules 34 and 35, Chapter XIVA of KER
and also the law laid down a Full Bench of this Court in Abraham
A.G. and others v. State of Kerala and others [2009 (3) KLT
659]. The appellant, who was working as HST (SS) at KHMHSS,
Alathiyoor, as on 01.06.2024, on deployment as a protected
teacher, is not legally entitled to be appointed as the Headmaster
in the High School section of ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, in the
vacancy which arose on 01.06.2024.
14. Chapter XIVA of KER deals with the conditions of
service of aided school teachers. As per Rule 1, Chapter XIVA of
KER, the Managers of private schools shall appoint only candidates
who possess the prescribed qualification.
15. As per Rule 44, Chapter XIVA of KER, the appointment
of Headmasters, Headmistresses and Vice-Principals shall
2025:KER:82644
ordinarily be according to seniority from the seniority list prepared
and maintained under clauses (a) and (b), as the case may be, of
Rule 34. The Manager will appoint the Headmaster, Headmistress
and Vice-Principal, subject to the Rules laid down in the matter. A
teacher, if he is aggrieved by such an appointment, will have the
right of appeal to the Department. As per Note to Rule 44,
whenever the Manager intends to appoint a person as
Headmaster, Headmistress and Vice-Principal, other than the
senior claimant, the Manager shall obtain a written consent from
such senior claimant renouncing his claim permanently. Such
consent shall have the approval of the Educational Officer
concerned.
16. As per Rule 44A, Chapter XIVA of KER, subject to the
provisions contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 44, the minimum
service qualification for appointment as Headmaster,
Headmistress and Vice-Principal in Aided Complete High Schools/
Training schools shall be twelve years of continuous graduate
service with a pass in the test in Kerala Education Act and the
Kerala Education Rules and a pass in account Test (Lower)
conducted by Kerala Public Service Commission. As per the first
2025:KER:82644
proviso to Rule 44A, Headmasters, Headmistresses and Vice-
Principals of High Schools and Training Schools, who were actually
holding the said post on the 11th day of June, 1974, shall stand
exempted from passing the Account Test (Lower). As per the
second proviso to Rule 44A, teachers who have attained the age
of 50 years shall stand exempted permanently from acquiring the
test qualification specified in sub-rule (1). As per the third proviso
to Rule 44A, inserted with effect from 01.06.2015,
notwithstanding anything contained in the second proviso, in the
case of appointment to the post of Headmaster, preference shall
be given to those teachers who have acquired the test
qualifications specified in Rule 44A.
17. As per Rule 49, Chapter XIVA of KER, qualified
teachers, except Headmasters appointed in vacancies which are
not permanent, which extend over the summer vacation, and who
continue in such vacancies till the closing date, shall be retained
in the vacancies during the vacation, if their continuous service as
on the closing day is not less than eight months. The teachers so
retained shall be entitled to the vacation salary. These teachers
shall be relieved on the closing day, if their continuous service as
2025:KER:82644
on that day is less than the aforesaid period. This rule shall not
apply to teachers appointed in training vacancies. As per the
Explanation to Rule 49, for the purpose of Rule 49, 'Headmaster'
includes Teacher-in-charge, Headmistress, Vice-Principal, also.
18. As per Rule 51, Chapter XIVA of KER, when a vacancy
in any category of post terminates necessitating the relief of a
teacher, senior hands shall ordinarily be retained in preference to
junior hands, with due regard to the requirement of subjects
determined by the Director under sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 and to the
instructions issued by him under sub-rule (4) of Rule 1.
19. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 52, Chapter XIVA of KER,
teachers who are relieved on account of any reduction in the
number of posts under orders of the Department shall, on re-
appointment in the same school or in another school under the
same management or a different management, start on the same
pay as they were getting at the time of relief, whether the new
appointment is permanent or not. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 52,
teachers thrown out of service due to the withdrawal of recognition
of schools by the Department shall also be eligible to draw the pay
2025:KER:82644
which they were getting at the time of withdrawal of recognition
of the school on re-appointment in another school.
20. As per Rule 51A, Chapter XIVA of KER, qualified
teachers who are relieved as per Rule 49 or 52 or on account of
termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to
future vacancies in the same or higher or lower category of
teaching posts, for which he is qualified, that may arise if there is
no claimant under Rule 43 in the lower category in schools under
the same Educational Agency or an Educational Agency to which
the school may be subsequently transferred, provided they have
not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any
other Educational Agency. As per the first proviso to Rule 51A, a
teacher who was relieved under Rule 49 or Rule 52 shall not be
entitled to preference for appointment under this rule unless such
teacher has a minimum continuous service of one academic year
as on the date of relief. As per the second proviso to Rule 51A, the
first preference under this rule shall be given to protected teachers
belonging to the same Educational Agency.
21. As per Note 1 of Rule 51A, Chapter XIVA of KER, if there
are more than one claimant under this Rule, the order of
2025:KER:82644
preference shall be according to the date of first appointment. If
the date of first appointment is the same, then preference shall be
decided with reference to age, the older being given first
preference. In making such appointments, due regard should be
given to the requirement of subjects and to the instructions issued
by the Director under sub-rule (4) of Rule 1, as far as High schools
are concerned. As per Note 1A of Rule 51A, fresh appointments to
vacancies arising in the same or higher or lower category of
teaching posts under the Educational Agency shall be made only
after providing re-appointment to such teachers thrown out from
service and protected teachers available under the Educational
Agency. As per the Explanation, for the purpose of this clause,
'protected teacher' means a teacher who has been retrenched for
want of vacancy after putting such length of regular service that
may be specified by the Government or who is eligible for such
Protection as per G.O.(Ms.)No.104/69/Edn. dated 06.03.1969 or
G.O.(Ms.)No.231/84/G.Edn. dated 27.10.1984 or any other
orders issued by the Government from time to time. As per Note
2 of Rule 51A, the Manager should issue an order of appointment
to the teacher by Registered post acknowledgement due and give
2025:KER:82644
a period of 14 (fourteen) clear days to the teacher to join duty. If
the teacher does not join duty in time, the Manager should give a
further notice to the teacher stating that another person would be
appointed instead and that the preferential right under this rule
would be forfeited if not exercised within another 7 (seven) clear
days. If nothing is heard during that time also, the preferential
right under the rule will be regarded as forfeited.
22. Rule 34, Chapter XIVA of KER deals with seniority lists.
As per Rule 34, every management shall, subject to the provisions
contained in Rule 37, prepare and maintain in Form II-A a staff
list, otherwise called a seniority list, each for teachers in the High
Schools and those in the Primary Schools, as specified in clauses
(a) and (b). As per clause (a) of Rule 34, in the case of High
Schools, a combined seniority list of High School Assistants
(Subjects) and High School Assistants (languages) specified in
clauses (ii) and (ii-A) of Rule 3, Chapter XXIII shall be prepared
giving the High School Assistants (Languages) the credit of their
entire service as High School Assistants (Languages), irrespective
of whether they are Graduates or Title Holders, without prejudice
to the inter se seniority of High School Assistants (Subjects) and
2025:KER:82644
High School Assistants (Languages). The purpose of the seniority
list under clause (a) of Rule 34 shall be only to determine the
relative position of persons who shall be eligible for promotion as
High School Headmaster or Headmistress or Vice-Principal by
virtue of length of service and prescribed qualifications for
promotion as High School Headmaster or Headmistress or Vice-
Principal.
23. As per Rule 35, Chapter XIVA of KER, if the Educational
Agencies have more than one school in a District, they shall be
constituted into one unit and a common seniority list shall be
prepared for all the schools in the unit together and shall be
submitted to the concerned District Educational Officer for
approval. If the Educational Agencies have schools in more than
one District within a Revenue District, they shall be constituted as
one unit and a common seniority list shall be prepared for all the
schools in the unit together and submitted to the concerned
Deputy Director (Education) for approval. If the Educational
Agencies have schools in more than one Revenue District, they
shall be constituted as one unit, and a common seniority list shall
be prepared for all the schools together and shall be submitted to
2025:KER:82644
the Director for approval. The District Educational Officer, the
Deputy Director (Education) and the Director, as the case may be,
may approve the list provisionally pending finalisation of appeals,
if any, preferred by aggrieved teachers. The proviso to Rule 35
and Note 1 deals with the option of the Educational Agency to
constitute Girls' High Schools and Training Schools for women
under it as a separate unit.
24. As per Note 2 to Rule 35, Chapter XIVA of KER, the
seniority list shall be made as on the 1st day of January of every
year. The list should be made up-to-date and renewed every year.
The supplementary list during a school year, showing the names
of teachers appointed and got approved by the Controlling
Officers, shall be sent by the Educational Agency to the authority
competent to approve the list, with copies to all sub-controlling
officers concerned, before 31st May every year. The competent
authority shall approve the list provisionally by 30th June and
finally by 31st August every year. As per Note 3 to Rule 35, in case
the Educational Agency fails to comply with the provisions in Note
2 above, it shall be held responsible and such failure on the part
of the Educational Agency shall be deemed to be sufficient cause
2025:KER:82644
for taking steps referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 7, Chapter III
of KER.
25. As per Rule 36, Chapter XIVA of KER, the staff list as
provisionally approved shall be circulated to the teachers and
representations, if any, received from the teachers within one
month from the date of circulation, shall be submitted to the
concerned officer competent to approve the list, with the
management's remarks, within two months from the date of
receipt of the list provisionally approved, to the authorities
specified in Rule 35. The list shall be maintained by the
management and produced whenever required by the
Departmental authorities.
26. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 37, Chapter XIVA of KER,
the seniority of a teacher in any grade in any unit shall be decided
with reference to the length of continuous service in that grade in
that unit, provided he is duly qualified for the post. As per sub-
rule (2) of Rule 37, in the case of teachers in the same grade in
the same unit, whose date of commencement of continuous
service is the same, seniority shall be decided with reference to
the date of first appointment. If the date of the first appointment
2025:KER:82644
is also the same, seniority shall be decided with reference to age,
the older being the senior. As per the proviso to sub-rule (1) of
Rule 37, added by G.O.(P)No.130/2010/G.Edn. dated 23.07.2010,
the period of service rendered in the parent school or in another
school by a teacher, who is relieved under Rule 52, shall be
reckoned for seniority on his re-appointment to the parent school.
27. Though the stand taken in the counter affidavit dated
04.07.2024 filed by the 6th respondent is that Ext.R6(b) is a copy
of the approved seniority list as on 01.01.2024, as per the
endorsement made by the 4th respondent District Educational
Officer on Ext.R6(b), the seniority list as on 01.01.2024 is
provisionally approved. The said endorsement is one made on
17.02.2024. The stand taken in the counter affidavit dated
19.11.2024 filed by the 4th respondent District Educational Officer
is that as per Ext.P10 Government order dated 08.01.2024, the
seniority list from 01.01.2024 onwards has to be submitted
through Samanwaya. The process of approving the seniority list
through Samanwaya has not been completed, as no further
instructions have been received. Therefore, the seniority list as on
01.01.2024 has been provisionally approved. According to the 4th
2025:KER:82644
respondent, as per Ext.P11 circular dated 20.02.2024 issued by
the 2nd respondent Director of General Education, protected
teachers, who have been working in other management, should
not be included in the seniority list.
28. Prior to the addition of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of
Rule 37, Chapter XIVA of KER with effect from 23.07.2010, the
legal position was as laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in
Abraham A.G. and others v. State of Kerala and others
[2009 (3) KLT 659].
29. In Abraham A.G. [2009 (3) KLT 659], the question
referred for consideration of the Full Bench was whether protected
teachers would lose seniority in their parent school, on being
deployed to Government schools, or whether they could count the
period of their deployment also for the purpose of reckoning
seniority in their parent school. After referring to the provisions
contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 37, Chapter XIVA of KER (as it
stood prior to the addition of the proviso), the Full Bench observed
that sub-rule (1) of Rule 37 is very specific that seniority of any
teacher in any grade in any unit shall be decided with reference to
the continuous service in that grade in that unit, provided the
2025:KER:82644
incumbent is qualified for the post. It means that broken service
cannot be reckoned. Rule 34, Chapter XIVA of KER, inter alia, says
that in High Schools, a common seniority list of High School
Assistant (Core subjects) and High School Assistant (Languages)
shall be prepared. Rule 35 provides that if there is more than one
school, all the schools under the educational agency shall be
treated as one unit for the purpose of seniority. Rule 36 deals with
the publication of the seniority list. Going by Rule 37, it is
manifestly clear that broken service cannot be counted for the
purpose of seniority.
30. In Abraham A.G. [2009 (3) KLT 659], in the context
of Rule 37, Chapter XIVA of KER (as it stood prior to the addition
of the proviso), the Full Bench held that a plain reading of Rule 37
would show that if a teacher is deployed to a Government School
on protection, the same will affect her seniority because seniority
is reckoned with reference to the continuous qualified service in
the concerned unit. The observation made by the Division Bench
in Rahellamma v. State of Kerala [1997 (2) KLT 429] that
the service rendered as a protected teacher cannot be taken into
consideration as service for the purpose of seniority in the parent
2025:KER:82644
school is the correct legal position. But the view that the said
service cannot be reckoned to compute the length of service
mentioned in Rule 45, Chapter XIVA of KER is no longer a good
law, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court
in Pushparaj v. Manoharan [2006 (2) KLT 951], wherein it
was held that as the stipulation in Rule 45 is essentially one of
qualification for eligibility for consideration to the post of
headmaster, meaning thereby that graduate service equivalent to
half of the service of the undergraduate teacher is considered as
one of the eligibility conditions of the graduate teacher for getting
preference over the senior undergraduate teacher, there cannot
be any doubt that for deciding the eligibility condition, as in the
case of Rule 44A, in the case of Rule 45 also, service in another
school of both teachers can be reckoned to decide such eligibility.
31. In Usha Devi v. State of Kerala [2002 (1) KLT
615], a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the 6 th
respondent, a Division Bench of this Court held that the
maintenance of a seniority list is absolutely essential in respect of
every establishment, as the absence of the same is likely to create
unwanted and unnecessary disputes. The relevance of such a
2025:KER:82644
statutory provision cannot but be emphasised. Such a list is to be
made up-to-date and renewed every year, and a supplementary
list showing the names of fresh appointees is also to be prepared
and got approved so as to ensure its authenticity. The Rule
provides that if the educational agency fails to comply with the
provisions, it shall be deemed to be sufficient cause for taking
action against the institution.
32. In Usha Devi [2002 (1) KLT 615], on the facts of the
case at hand, the Division Bench noticed that in the final seniority
list published as on 1st January, 1995, the petitioner was shown as
senior to Usha Devi. The said seniority list was published after
circulating the provisional seniority list, calling for objections. Usha
Devi has not filed any objections against the provisional seniority
list. Even after publishing the final seniority list, she has not
challenged the seniority of the petitioner. Therefore, the seniority
position of the petitioner is final as on 1st January, 1995. Seniority
lists for subsequent years are published only to accommodate the
new entrants in service and not to revise the settled position of
others. Usha Devi, who has not challenged the seniority list
published in the year 1995, filed objections to the provisional
2025:KER:82644
seniority list published in the year 1999, questioning the settled
seniority of the petitioner. The Division Bench noticed the settled
position in service law that every person is entitled to sit back and
consider that his seniority settled long ago would not be unsettled
after the lapse of a number of years. The Division Bench, in the
context of sub-rule (1) of Rule 37, Chapter XIVA of KER, as it stood
prior to the addition of the proviso, held that a protected teacher
has no right to seniority in the parent school from the initial date
of appointment.
33. In Prasad V.B. v. Manager, Philipose Mar Dilshus
U.P. School [2005 (3) KLT 487], a Division Bench of this Court
reiterated the law laid down in Mar Sleeba UPS v. State of
Kerala [1990 (1) KLT 626] that a protected teacher has no
claim for the post of headmaster as he is not a member of the
staff of the parent school during that time though he has a claim
under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of KER. In the said decision, the
Division Bench was dealing with a case in which the appellant was
on protection when the vacancy in the post of Headmaster arose
on 01.06.1994.
2025:KER:82644
34. As made clear in clause (a) of Rule 34, Chapter XIVA of
KER, the purpose of the seniority list under clause (a) shall be only
to determine the relative position of persons who shall be eligible
for promotion as High School Headmaster or Headmistress or
Vice-Principal by virtue of length of service and prescribed
qualifications for promotion as High School Headmaster or
Headmistress or Vice-Principal. Note 2 to Rule 35, Chapter XIVA
of KER provides that the seniority list shall be made as on the 1st
day of January of every year, which should be made up-to-date
and renewed every year. Note 2 provides for a supplementary list
during a school year, before 31st May every year, showing the
names of teachers appointed, whose appointments are approved
by the Controlling Officers, which shall be sent to the authority
competent to approve the list, with copies to all sub-controlling
officers concerned, and the competent authority shall approve the
said list provisionally by 30th June and finally by 31st August every
year. Rule 36, Chapter XIVA of KER, provides for the circulation of
the provisionally approved staff list and its approval by the
competent officer, after considering the representations, if any,
received from the teachers within one month from the date of
2025:KER:82644
circulation, along with the remarks of the management. The
competent officer shall approve the staff list provisionally
approved, within two months from the date of receipt of the same,
along with such representations and remarks.
35. In view of the provisions contained in sub-rule (1) of
Rule 37, Chapter XIVA of KER, the seniority of a teacher in any
grade in any unit shall be decided with reference to the length of
continuous service in that grade in that unit, provided he is duly
qualified for the post. In every other service, the seniority is
normally determined with reference to the date of regular
appointment. However, in the case of teachers in aided schools,
their seniority is determined with reference to the length of
continuous service in that grade in that unit, provided the teacher
is duly qualified for the post.
36. In Usha Devi [2002 (1) KLT 615], a Division Bench
of this Court, in the context of sub-rule (1) of Rule 37, Chapter
XIVA of KER, as it stood prior to the addition of the proviso, held
that a protected teacher has no right to seniority in the parent
school from the initial date of appointment. Later, in Abraham
A.G. [2009 (3) KLT 659], a Full Bench of this Court, after
2025:KER:82644
referring to sub-rule (1) of Rule 37, Chapter XIVA of KER, as it
stood prior to the addition of the proviso, held that sub-rule (1) of
Rule 37 is very specific that seniority of any teacher in any grade
in any unit shall be decided with reference to the continuous
service in that grade in that unit, provided the incumbent is
qualified for the post. It means that broken service cannot be
reckoned. A plain reading of Rule 37 would show that if a teacher
is deployed to a Government School on protection, the same will
affect her seniority because seniority is reckoned with reference
to the continuous qualified service in the concerned unit.
37. After the decision of the Division Bench in Usha Devi
[2002 (1) KLT 615] and the decision of the Full Bench in
Abraham A.G. [2009 (3) KLT 659], by adding the proviso to
sub-rule (1) of Rule 37, Chapter XIVA of KER, with effect from
23.07.2010, it is provided that, in the case of an aided school
teacher who is relieved under Rule 52, the period of service
rendered in the parent school or in another school shall be
reckoned for seniority on his re-appointment to the parent school.
Therefore, in view of the proviso of sub-rule (1) of Rule 37, in the
case of an aided school teacher who is relieved under Rule 52, on
2025:KER:82644
account of any reduction of posts in the parent school under the
orders of the Department, the period of service rendered in the
parent school or in another school shall be reckoned for seniority
on his re-appointment to the parent school. On re-appointment to
the parent school, the protected teacher is entitled to be reckoned
for seniority, the period of service rendered in the parent school
or in another school. In other words, on re-appointment in the
parent school, the seniority of the protected teacher shall be
decided with reference to his length of continuous service in that
grade, after reckoning the service rendered by him in the parent
school or in another school.
38. In view of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 37,
Chapter XIVA of KER, added with effect from 23.07.2010, a
protected teacher, on his re-appointment to the parent school, is
legally entitled to placement in the seniority list prepared under
Rule 34, Chapter XIVA of KER, and approved by the competent
authority under Rule 35, read with the provisions under Note 2 to
the said Rule, with reference to the date of his re-appointment to
the parent school. In case the re-appointment of a protected
teacher to the parent school is delayed, either due to the delay on
2025:KER:82644
the part of the competent authority of the Department in issuing
an order recalling him to the parent school or due to the delay on
the part of the Educational Authority concerned in permitting him
to rejoin the parent school, thereby denying his claim for
promotion under Rule 43, Chapter XIVA of KER to a vacancy in
any higher grade of pay, or promotion under Rules 43A, 43B or
43C, or his claim for appointment as Headmaster, Headmistress
or Vice-Principal under Rules 44 or 45, Chapter XIVA of KER or his
claim for preferential appointment under Rule 51A, Chapter XIVA
of KER, he shall be entitled to re-appointment to the parent school
with effect from the date of occurrence of vacancy in the parent
school; for placement in the seniority list prepared under Rule 34,
Chapter XIVA of KER, and approved by the competent authority
under Rule 35, read with the provisions under Note 2 to the said
Rule, with effect from the date of occurrence of that vacancy in
the parent school; and for consideration of his claim for promotion,
appointment or preferential appointment under the above rules,
in any vacancy which occurred in the parent school subsequent to
the date of occurrence of the vacancy in the grade in which he was
entitled for re-appointment. Any interpretation to the contrary
2025:KER:82644
would defeat the very object of the amendment made to sub-rule
(1) of Rule 37, Chapter XIVA of KER, with effect from 23.07.2010,
by adding a proviso thereto.
39. In the case at hand, Smt. Khadeeja P., HST (SS) in
ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, retired from service on 30.04.2024,
resulting in a vacancy of HST (SS) for re-appointing the appellant-
petitioner, who was working as a protected teacher in KHMHSS,
Alathiyoor, to the parent school. Later, Smt. Pushpalatha V.R., the
Headmistress of ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, also retired from
service on 31.05.2024, resulting in a vacancy for making an
appointment under Rule 44, Chapter XIVA of KER. Anticipating the
said vacancies, the appellant submitted Ext.P1 representation
dated 16.09.2023 before the 2nd respondent Director of General
Education, with a request to post him in the parent school, in the
retirement vacancy of Smt. Khadeeja P., HST (SS), and then
consider his claim for appointment as Headmaster of the school.
40. Though Smt. Khadeeja P. retired from service on
30.04.2024, resulting in a vacancy of HST (SS) in ZMHSS,
Poolamangalam, for re-appointing the appellant in the parent
school, the 3rd respondent Deputy Director of Education issued
2025:KER:82644
Ext.P6 order for that purpose only on 03.06.2024. Though Ext.P6
order is dated 29.05.2024, the 3rd respondent signed the said
order only on 03.06.2024. Based on Ext.P6 order, the appellant
was relieved from KHMHSS, Alathiyoor, on 03.06.2024 AN, and he
rejoined the parent school, i.e., ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, on
04.06.2024 FN. On the retirement of Smt. Pushpalatha V.R. on
31.05.2024, the 4th respondent District Educational Officer, who is
functioning as the Manager of ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, placed the
6th respondent, who was an HST (Physical Science), as the
Headmaster-in-charge in the High School Section of that school,
with effect from 01.06.2024.
41. The appellant, on rejoining duty in the parent school,
submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 09.06.2024 before the 4th
respondent District Educational Officer, to enter his name in all the
records of ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, and to appoint him as the
Headmaster in the High School Section of that school, in the
vacancy that arose from 01.06.2024. The 4th respondent issued
Ext.P9 communication dated 15.06.2024, whereby the appellant
was informed that he cannot be considered for appointment as
Headmaster in the High School Section of ZMHSS,
2025:KER:82644
Poolamangalam, as his name was not included in the seniority list
of the teachers in that school, as on 01.01.2024. Further, he has
not rejoined the parent school on 01.06.2024. In W.P.(C)No.22357
of 2024, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order dated
23.07.2024 to the effect that approval for the appointment of the
6th respondent shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
42. In the impugned judgment dated 29.01.2025, the
learned Single Judge found that though the petitioner (appellant
herein) was served with Ext.P6 order of redeployment to the
parent school as HST (SS) on 29.05.2024, he could join the parent
school only on 04.06.2024. Therefore, the petitioner was not a
teacher of the parent school as on 01.06.2024, the date of
occurrence of the vacancy of Headmaster. The petitioner was not
included in the seniority list of the parent school, drawn as on
01.01.2014. As per the Rules, the supplementary list during a
school year is liable to be sent before 31st May of every year. The
competent authority has to approve the list provisionally by 30 th
June and finally by 31st August every year. The name of the
petitioner is not in the seniority list of the school as on 01.01.2024
or as on 31.05.2024. The petitioner was not physically working in
2025:KER:82644
the parent school, as on 01.06.2024, the date of the occurrence
of the vacancy. Ext.P7 relieving order indicates that the petitioner
was relieved from the deployed school only on 03.06.2024.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge concluded that the petitioner
cannot aspire to claim the post of Headmaster, which arose in the
parent school on 01.06.2024. Hence, there is no illegality in Ext.P9
communication dated 15.06.2024.
43. By the order dated 06.03.2025 in this writ appeal, it
was ordered that approval to the appointment of the 6th
respondent will be subject to the outcome of the writ appeal. On
10.04.2025, it was ordered that, if the appellant is being
retrenched for want of strength, that shall not be done without
orders from this Court. On 05.06.2025, while admitting the writ
appeal on file, it was made clear that the interim order granted by
the Division Bench on 06.03.2025 shall continue to be in force.
44. As already noticed hereinbefore, though Ext.P6 order
of the 3rd respondent Deputy Director of Education is dated
29.05.2024, the 3rd respondent signed the said order only on
03.06.2024. Therefore, based on Ext.P6 order, the appellant was
relieved from KHMHSS, Alathiyoor, on 03.06.2024 AN, and he
2025:KER:82644
could rejoin the parent school, i.e., ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, only
on 04.06.2024 FN. Therefore, the finding of the learned Single
Judge that the petitioner (appellant herein) was served with
Ext.P6 order of redeployment to the parent school as HST (SS) on
29.05.2024 is factually incorrect.
45. Anticipating the vacancy in the parent school, the
appellant submitted Ext.P1 representation dated 16.09.2023
before the 2nd respondent Director of General Education, with a
request to post him in the parent school, in the retirement vacancy
of Smt. Khadeeja P., HST (SS), and then consider his claim for
appointment as Headmaster of the school. As evident from
Annexure A order dated 04.04.2017 of the Block Programme
Officer, Block Resource Centre, Adoor, produced along with
I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed in this writ appeal, Smt. Mini R., another
protected teacher of ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, was relieved with
effect from 04.04.2017, based on the order passed by the 3rd
respondent Deputy Director of Education, for rejoining the parent
school. Therefore, there was no legal impediment in recalling a
protected teacher to his parent school during summer vacation,
as protected teachers are drawing their salary throughout their
2025:KER:82644
service, from the parent school. Neither Ext.P9 communication
dated 15.06.2024 nor the counter affidavit dated 19.11.2024 filed
in the writ petition by the 4th respondent District Educational
Officer contains any explanation for delaying the issuance of
Ext.P6 order dated 29.05.2024 of the 3rd respondent Deputy
Director of Education till 03.06.2024, thereby denying an
opportunity to the appellant to rejoin the parent school as HST
(SS), at least on 29.05.2024, in the vacancy that occurred due to
the retirement of Smt. Khadeeja P. on 30.04.2024. The said
vacancy occurred in the parent school, much before the date of
retirement of Smt. Pushpalatha V.R. on 31.05.2024, resulting in a
vacancy of Headmaster on 01.06.2024. The continuous service of
the appellant-petitioner in the post of HST (SS) commenced on
17.08.1994, whereas that of the 6th respondent as HST (Physical
Science) commenced only on 17.07.1995. The 6th respondent is
Sl.No.3 in Ext.R1(b) seniority list as on 01.01.2024, provisionally
approved by the 4th respondent District Educational Officer. If the
appellant was permitted to rejoin the parent school as HST (SS),
either on the date of occurrence of vacancy, i.e., 01.05.2024, or
at least on 29.05.2024, the date shown in Ext.P6 order of the 3rd
2025:KER:82644
respondent Deputy Director of Education, he would have become
the seniormost qualified HST in ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, as on
01.06.2024, for being appointed as the Headmaster of that school.
46. As concluded hereinbefore at paragraphs 37 and 38, in
view of the proviso of sub-rule (1) of Rule 37, Chapter XIVA of
KER, added with effect from 23.07.2010, in the case of an aided
school teacher who is relieved under Rule 52, on account of any
reduction of posts in the parent school under the orders of the
Department, the period of service rendered in the parent school
or in another school shall be reckoned for seniority on his re-
appointment to the parent school. On re-appointment in the
parent school, the seniority of the protected teacher shall be
decided with reference to his length of continuous service in that
grade, after reckoning the service rendered by him in the parent
school or in another school. A protected teacher, on his re-
appointment to the parent school, is legally entitled to placement
in the seniority list prepared under Rule 34, Chapter XIVA of KER,
and approved by the competent authority under Rule 35, read with
the provisions under Note 2 to the said Rule, with reference to the
date of his re-appointment to the parent school. In case the re-
2025:KER:82644
appointment of a protected teacher to the parent school is
delayed, either due to the delay on the part of the competent
authority of the Department in issuing an order recalling him to
the parent school or due to the delay on the part of the Educational
Authority concerned in permitting him to rejoin the parent school,
thereby denying his claim for appointment as Headmaster,
Headmistress or Vice-Principal under Rule 44, Chapter XIVA of
KER, he shall be entitled to re-appointment to the parent school
with effect from the date of occurrence of vacancy in the parent
school; for placement in the seniority list prepared under Rule 34,
Chapter XIVA of KER, and approved by the competent authority
under Rule 35, read with the provisions under Note 2 to the said
Rule, with effect from the date of occurrence of that vacancy in
the parent school; and for consideration of his claim for
appointment as Headmaster, Headmistress or Vice-Principal under
Rule 44, Chapter XIVA of KER, in any vacancy which occurred in
the parent school subsequent to the date of occurrence of the
vacancy in the grade in which he was entitled for re-appointment.
47. In the case of the appellant-petitioner, his re-
appointment to the parent school as HST (SS) in the vacancy
2025:KER:82644
occurred due to the retirement of Smt. Khadeeja P. on 30.04.2024
was delayed since the 3rd respondent Deputy Director of Education
signed Ext.P6 order dated 29.05.2024, only on 03.06.2024. As
evident from Annexure A order dated 04.04.2017 of the Block
Programme Officer, Block Resource Centre, Adoor, Smt. Mini R.,
another protected teacher of ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, was
relieved with effect from 04.04.2017, based on the order passed
by the 3rd respondent Deputy Director of Education, for rejoining
the parent school. Therefore, there was no legal impediment in
recalling the appellant, who was a protected teacher, to his parent
school during summer vacation, as protected teachers are drawing
their salary throughout their service, from the parent school. Since
the 3rd respondent signed Ext.P6 order dated 29.05.2024 only on
03.06.2024, the appellant was denied an opportunity to rejoin the
parent school as HST (SS), at least on 29.05.2024, in the vacancy
that occurred due to the retirement of Smt. Khadeeja P. on
30.04.2024, which occurred in the parent school, much before the
date of retirement of Smt. Pushpalatha V.R. on 31.05.2024,
resulting in a vacancy of Headmaster on 01.06.2024. In such
circumstances, the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in the
2025:KER:82644
impugned judgment dated 29.01.2025 in W.P.(C)No.22357 of
2024 to decline the reliefs sought for in the said writ petition
cannot be legally sustained.
48. In the result, this writ appeal is disposed of by setting
aside the impugned judgment dated 29.01.2025 of the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.22357 of 2024. Since the re-
appointment of the appellant, who was a protected teacher, as
HST (SS) in the vacancy that occurred in the parent school, i.e.,
ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, due to the retirement of Smt. Khadeeja
P. on 30.04.2024, was delayed due to the delay on the part of the
3rd respondent Deputy Director of Education in issuing an order
recalling him to the parent school, thereby denying his claim for
appointment as Headmaster under Rule 44, Chapter XIVA of KER,
in the vacancy occurred due to the retirement of Smt. Pushpalatha
V.R. on 31.05.2024, it is ordered that the appellant is entitled to
re-appointment in ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, the parent school, as
HST (SS), with effect from the date of occurrence of vacancy, i.e.,
01.05.2024; for placement in the seniority list of ZMHSS,
Poolamangalam, for the year 2024, prepared under Rule 34,
Chapter XIVA of KER, with effect from the date of occurrence of
2025:KER:82644
the vacancy of HST (SS), i.e., 01.05.2024; and for appointment
as Headmaster under Rule 44, Chapter XIVA of KER, in the
vacancy which occurred in ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, the parent
school, on 01.06.2024. Ext.P9 communication dated 15.06.2024
issued by the 4th respondent District Educational Officer and the
approval granted to the appointment of the 6th respondent as
Headmaster, ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, with effect from
01.06.2024, vide order No.B3/729583/2024 dated 24.07.2024,
which was made subject to the result of W.P.(C)No.22357 of 2024
(in view of the interim order dated 23.07.2024), which was also
subject to the outcome of this writ appeal (in view of the interim
order dated 06.03.2025 in this writ appeal), are set aside.
The 4th respondent District Educational Officer, who is
functioning as the Manager of ZMHSS, Poolamangalam, shall
appoint the appellant as the Headmaster of the school, with effect
from 01.06.2024, with all consequential benefits. The appellant
shall also be given placement in the seniority list of ZMHSS,
Poolamangalam, for the year 2024, prepared under Rule 34,
Chapter XIVA of KER, with effect from the date of occurrence of
the vacancy of HST (SS), i.e., 01.05.2024. Necessary steps in this
2025:KER:82644
regard shall be taken by the 4th respondent District Educational
Officer, who is functioning as the Manager of ZMHSS,
Poolamangalam, and also by the 3rd respondent Deputy Director
of Education, within a period of one month from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
AV
2025:KER:82644
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER NO.
A/1/2017-18 DATED 04.04.2017 ISSUED BY
THE BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICER, BRC, ADOOR
RELIEVING ONE MRS. MINI R.
