Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 351 (KER)

Sethumadhavan v. Government of Kerala

2000-07-11

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR

body2000
Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The rival claims to the post of Headmaster raised by the petitioner and 6th respondent are finally resolved by the Government in Ext. P4 holding that the claim of the 6th respondent shall be upheld inspite of the decision of the Manager to appoint the petitioner. Therefore Ext.P4 is under challenge in this Original Petition. 2. The post of Headmaster of A.M.U.P.School, Puranannur, an aided school, fell vacant on 1.5.1999. The Manager appointed the petitioner who was admittedly senior to the 6th respondent. Sixth respondent was a graduate with B.Ed, whereas the petitioner was not. The 6th respondent had more than half of the service put in by the petitioner. The 6th respondent had also more than five years service after acquiring B.Ed, qualification. Therefore she claimed that she had preference being a graduate with B.Ed, and sufficient service qualification, for appointment as Headmaster of a U.P.School in terms of rule 45 Chap. XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. Finding that there was a teacher with graduation and B.Ed, with sufficient service qualification in terms of R.45 of Chap. XIV-a K.E.R. the Assistant Educational Officer declined to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster. The petitioner filed appeal. At that stage the 6th respondent was also heard. The respective claims were examined and the District Educational Officer set aside the order of the Assistant Educational Officer. The 6th respondent went in revision before the Director of Public Instruction. The Director of Public Instruction also upheld the order of the District Educational Officer. That was again challenged in a review petition under R.92 of Chap. XIV-A K.E.R. by the 6th respondent. The Government after considering the 6th respondent's graduation with B.Ed, and the service qualification, passed Ext. P4 upholding the claim of the 6th respondent. That is why petitioner has approached this court. 3. Petitioner is having 25 years of service as Hindi teacher. He has passed Hindi Praveen examination of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha and also acquired Teacher's Training Course (L.T.T.). These are sufficient alternative qualifications provided for in R.3(2) of Chap. XXXI of the Kerala Education Rules for appointment as Hindi Teacher in High Schools. On the basis of that qualification he was appointed as a Hindi teacher of A.M. U.P. School. The 6th respondent was appointed on 6.6.1979 as a regular assistant teacher. These are sufficient alternative qualifications provided for in R.3(2) of Chap. XXXI of the Kerala Education Rules for appointment as Hindi Teacher in High Schools. On the basis of that qualification he was appointed as a Hindi teacher of A.M. U.P. School. The 6th respondent was appointed on 6.6.1979 as a regular assistant teacher. She was at that time having B.A. and B.Ed, degrees. For promotion to the post of Headmaster seniority is the criterion going by R.44 Chap. XIV-A K.E.R. As per the note under R.45 Chap. XIV-A K.E.R. language teachers are also to be included in the seniority list along with Assistant Teachers based on the commencement of continuous service. Therefore the petitioner is senior to the 6th respondent. That cannot be disputed. But R.45 Chap. XIV-A gives preference to the U.P.School Assistants who are having graduation with B.Ed, and five years service as teacher after acquiring B.Ed, over a senior most under graduate teacher provided such graduate teachers have more than half of the service put in by the senior most undergraduate teacher for being posted as Headmaster. Going by the date of appointment as mentioned above, the 6th respondent has got nearly 20 years of service when the vacancy arose. This is more than half of the total service put in by the petitioner. The 6th respondent is also having B.A. and B.Ed, qualifications and five years service after acquiring B.Ed, degree. Petitioner does not have B.A. B.Ed. Therefore the 6th respondent has preference over the petitioner though he is senior in terms of note to rule 45 Chap. XIV-A K.E.R., for being posted as Headmaster when the vacancy arose. This is what is found by the Government in Ext.P4.4. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that he is possessing Praveen and L.T.T. which are sufficient qualifications necessary for appointment as High School Assistant. The minimum qualification necessary for High School Assistant (Hindi) is B.A. (Hindi) with B.Ed. The Praveen qualification awarded by the Dakshin Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha with L.T.T. is also sufficient alternative qualification for appointment as High School Assistant. When the petitioner is thus qualified to be appointed as High School Assistant thindi) though he is working in a U.P.School, he can be termed as having qualification equivalent to graduation and B.Ed. The Praveen qualification awarded by the Dakshin Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha with L.T.T. is also sufficient alternative qualification for appointment as High School Assistant. When the petitioner is thus qualified to be appointed as High School Assistant thindi) though he is working in a U.P.School, he can be termed as having qualification equivalent to graduation and B.Ed. In such circumstances the preference shown in R.45 shall be given to the petitioners as well because the word used in R.45 is "graduate teacher with B.Ed, or any other equivalent qualification and who has got atleast five years experience in teaching after acquisition of B.Ed, degree." When this phraseology is employed in R.45 Chap. XIV-A K.E.R. it can be seen that persons with other equivalent qualification shall also be considered for such preference. Petitioner does not have B.Ed. That is an admitted position. He is having only L.T.T. If the petitioner has to succeed he has to prove that L.T.T. is equal to B.Ed, and Praveen is equal to graduation. Merely because those are alternative qualifications for appointment as High School Assistant it cannot be taken that those are equivalent qualifications to graduation and B.Ed, which are the essential qualifications for getting preference for appointment as Headmaster under R.45 Chap. XIV-A K.E.R. Unless there are specific orders to the effect that Praveen is equivalent to graduation and L.T.T. is equivalent to B.Ed, petitioner cannot get any preference in terms of R.45 Chap. XIV-A K.E.R. Petitioner has to compete for the post of Headmaster on the basis of her seniority in terms of the note under the said rule. Even if his seniority is reckoned, when the 6th respondent is having more that half of the service put in by the petitioner with graduation and B.Ed, and five years teaching experience after acquiring B.Ed, necessarily she has preference over the petitioner. That is what is upheld by Ext.P4 as well. Accordingly there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order Ext. P4. Original Petition fails and is dismissed.