Rosalin vs The Assistant Educational Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 9945 Ker

Kerala High Court

Rosalin vs The Assistant Educational Officer on 22 October, 2025

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

                                             2025:KER:78360




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 30TH ASWINA, 1947

                 WP(C) NO. 27019 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

         ROSALIN
         AGED 55 YEARS
         W/O PANDY, TEACHER, ALPS KUNDALA,
         KUNDALA ESTATE QUARTERS, YELLAPETTI POST
         MUNNAR, PIN - 685617

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.C.S.MANILAL
         SRI.S.NIDHEESH



RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
         OFFICE OF THE AEO, MUNNAR,
         IDUKKI, PIN - 685612

    2    THE MANAGER
         HIGHRANGE ESTATE SCHOOL CORPORATE AGENCY
         HEADQUARTERS, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
         PIN - 685612

    3    BALA SUBHRAMANIYAM
         HEADMASTER ALPS, PALLIVASAL,
         IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685556
                                              2025:KER:78360
WP(C) No.27019 of 2025
                           2


         BY ADVS.
         SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS
         SMT.A.K.PREETHA
         SMT.DEVIKA MOHAN
         SMT.RESHMA R.KRISHNAN
         SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
         SRI.ISAAC THOMAS
         SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM
         SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS
         SRI.JOHN VITHAYATHIL
         SMT. ANIMA M., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 22.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                  2025:KER:78360
WP(C) No.27019 of 2025
                               3


                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2025

The petitioner states that she is the seniormost

Teacher entitled for promotion to the post of Headmistress.

When a vacancy of Headmaster arose in the School of the

management at Thenmalai on 01.04.2025, the post was

offered to the petitioner and the petitioner relinquished her

claim against that post for personal reasons.

2. Subsequently, another vacancy of

Headmaster arose on 01.06.2025 in the School of the

management at Pallivasal. The 3 rd respondent was appointed

against the said vacancy, perhaps taking note of the

relinquishment given by the petitioner for her claim for

promotion to the post of Headmaster.

3. The petitioner took up the issue before the

Assistant Educational Officer, Munnar. The Assistant

Educational Officer, as per Ext.P6 order dated 20.06.2025 2025:KER:78360

held that the petitioner has a superior right for promotion to

the post of Headmaster. However, the Assistant Educational

Officer directed that the petitioner be considered against

subsequent vacancies of Headmaster.

4. Then the petitioner filed an appeal before the

management. The management held that at present, the only

vacancy of Headmaster post available is at ALPS,

Sevenmalai and the vacancy has been reserved for senior

Headmaster currently on roll, due to administrative reasons.

Since no other Headmaster post is vacant in the Schools

under the management at present, the petitioner will be

considered for promotion as and when a vacancy arises in

any of the Schools under the management. Aggrieved by

Ext.P7, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioner argued that in view

of Rule 44(1), Chapter XIVA of KER, whenever a vacancy of

Headmaster arises, if a senior incumbent is to be overlooked,

the Manager has to obtain a relinquishment letter from such 2025:KER:78360

incumbent. This has been so held by this Court in George v.

State of Kerala [1998 (2) KLT 637], Mahatma High School v.

State of Kerala [1991 (1) KLT 705], Mariyam Koshi v. Jolly

Varghese [2007 (4) KLT 8308] and Rajasree v. Secretary to

Government [2000 (2) KLT 248].

6. The petitioner therefore urged that the 2 nd

respondent be directed to promote the petitioner to any of the

Schools under the 2nd respondent's management that had

arisen after 01.04.2025 by reconsidering the promotions

already effected.

7. The 2nd respondent entered appearance and

resisted the writ petition. The 2nd respondent pointed out that

by Ext.P3 letter dated 24.05.2025, the petitioner had

relinquished her claim for the post of Headmaster and

requested to consider the petitioner's situation later and that

the petitioner can wait till June at least for further promotions.

As the petitioner requested not to promote her, the Manager

proceeded to appoint the 3rd respondent against the vacancy 2025:KER:78360

of Headmaster arose in Pallivasal School with effect from

01.06.2025. The action of the Manager is not illegal or

arbitrary. It is based on a valid relinquishment letter issued by

the petitioner as per Ext.P1. The petitioner cannot now turn

around and claim that she should be appointed against the

vacancy which occurred on 01.06.2025.

8. The counsel for the 2nd respondent further

submitted that another vacancy of Headmaster is arising in

Rajamalai School and the petitioner's claim can be considered

against the said vacancy.

9. The 3rd respondent entered appearance and

resisted the writ petition. The 3 rd respondent submitted that

the petitioner had in unequivocal terms relinquished her claim

for promotion to the vacancies of Headmaster, at least till

June. Thereafter, a number of vacancies of Headmaster

arose under the management.

10. It is evident from Ext.P5 representation of the

petitioner that the vacancy of Headmaster had arisen at 2025:KER:78360

ALPS, Nadayar on retirement of one Joy Mekhala. Another

vacancy arose at ALPS, Thenmalai on retirement of one V.

Sundar. Thereafter, two more vacancies had arisen on

02.05.2025 at ALPS, Neyamakadu and ALPS, Pallivasal. Yet

again, one more vacancy had arisen at ALPS, Sevenmalai on

02.06.2025 on the retirement of one Mummtaj.

11. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition

seeking appointment as Headmaster in the School at

Pallivasal. The petitioner cannot be permitted to pick and

choose the post of Headmaster for her promotion. Ext.P1

letter of relinquishment will disentitle the petitioner for

appointment by promotion to the post of Headmaster in the

Pallivasal School.

12. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the

1st respondent and respective learned counsel appearing for

respondents 2 and 3.

2025:KER:78360

13. It is not in dispute that when a vacancy of

Headmaster arose in Thenmalai School on 01.04.2025, the

Manager had approached the petitioner and the petitioner

gave Ext.P1 relinquishment letter. In Ext.P1, the petitioner

has stated that she can wait till June for new positions to be

filled. It is based on Ext.P1 relinquishment letter that the

Manager declined to consider the petitioner for promotion to

the post of Headmaster in Pallivasal School when the vacancy

arose on and from 01.06.2025.

14. Rule 44 of Chapter XIVA of the KER reads

as follows:

44. (1) The appointment of Headmasters, Headmistress and Vice-Principals shall 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 appointment will have the right of appeal to the Department.

Note: 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 2025:KER:78360

such senior claimant renouncing his claim permanently. Such consent shall have the approval of the Educational Officer concerned.

(2) An appeal under sub-rule (1) shall lie to the Educational Officer.

(3) A second appeal shall lie to the District Educational Officer against the order of the Assistant Educational Officer passed on an appeal preferred under sub-rule (2). In the case of an order passed by the District Educational Officer under sub-rule (2), the second appeal shall lie to the Deputy Director (Education). (4) No appeal or second appeal preferred under these rules shall be entertained unless it is preferred within one month of the date of receipt of the order appealed against.

The note below Rule 44(1) provides that 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.

15. The said Rule came up for consideration

before a learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgment in 2025:KER:78360

George v. State of Kerala [1998 (2) KLT 637]. This Court held

that renouncing claim to a post once cannot be treated as a

permanent relinquishment for all years to come. The issue

was again considered by a Division Bench of this Court in

Rajasree v. Secretary to Government [2000 (2) KLT 248].

The Division Bench of this Court held that the practice of

obtaining relinquishment letter from a Teacher while issuing

the initial order of appointment renouncing his or her claim for

promotion for all time to come is an unhealthy practice.

16. A reading of Rule 44 of Chapter XIVA of the

KER and the afore judgments of this Court would indicate that

whenever a vacancy arises and the Manager intends to

overlook the claim of a senior Teacher, the Manager has to

obtain a relinquishment letter.

17. In this case, admittedly, no such

relinquishment letter was obtained from the petitioner while

filling up the post of Headmaster in the Pallivasal School on

01.06.2025. The petitioner is therefore entitled to relief.

2025:KER:78360

Exts.P4 and P7 are therefore quashed. The 2 nd respondent is

directed to promote the petitioner in any of the Schools under

the 2nd respondent's management that has arisen after

01.04.2025 by reconsidering the promotions already effected.

As the petitioner is due to retire on 31.10.2025, promotion

orders shall be issued before 31.10.2025.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk 2025:KER:78360

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27019/2025

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/03/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/03/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/05/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29/05/2025 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE PETITION SEEKING TO CANCEL THE ORDER FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06/06/2025 Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20/06/2025 Exhibit P7 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/06/2025 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.02.2025 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER RECEIVED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 11.03.2025 EXHIBIT R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION LETTER DATED 14.03.2025 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT R2(D) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.

AEOMNR/139/2025-C DATED 08.04.2025 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT