Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 671 (KER)

Benny Luckose S/o Luckose v. State of Kerala

2021-07-27

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner in these two Writ Petitions is the same, who seeks connected reliefs and consequently, I propose to dispose them jointly through this judgment. 2. The petitioner is stated to have retired as the Principal of St. Joseph's Higher Secondary School, Pullurampara, Kozhikode - which is under the management of the 4th respondent - with effect from 31.03.2020. It is submitted that he commenced continuous service under the 4th respondent-Management as a Lower Primary School Teacher (LPST) on 27.09.1984 and that he was appointed as Headmaster of the Upper Primary School Section under the same management with effect from 16.05.2003. He adds that Higher Secondary Section was sanctioned in the school in the academic year 2010-11 and consequent thereto, he was appointed ‘by transfer’ as a Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) [HSST (Jr)] in Political Science with effect from 28.11.2011. 3. The petitioner asserts that his appointment was on the basis of the recommendation made by the statutory Selection Committee and that it was approved by the 3rd respondent-Regional Director. He, however, concedes that, initially, the Regional Director had raised an objection against ‘by transfer’ appointment as an HSST (Jr) saying that, under Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules (KER for short), only an Upper Primary School Teacher (UPST) could have been so appointed; but that approval was thereafter granted based on the explanation of the Manager, contained in Ext.P5, that petitioner is retaining a lien as a UPST in the school. 4. The petitioner says that pursuant thereto, later, he was granted the charge of Principal and that in 2017, through Ext.P10 order, he was promoted substantively as the Principal. He says that, however, when the proposal for approval of his appointment as the Principal was taken before the Regional Director, Ext.P11 order was issued, rejecting the same, for the reason that his initial appointment as HSST (Jr) in the year 2012 made through Ext.P4, was irregular, again holding that no Headmaster of an Upper Primary Section could have been appointed as HSST (Jr). 5. The petitioner asserts that the afore stand in Ext.P11 is wholly irregular and improper, since his appointment as an HSST (Jr) had already been approved through Ext.P7 and further because Chapter XXXII of the KER does not say that Headmaster of the Upper Primary Section cannot be appointed as a HSST. 5. The petitioner asserts that the afore stand in Ext.P11 is wholly irregular and improper, since his appointment as an HSST (Jr) had already been approved through Ext.P7 and further because Chapter XXXII of the KER does not say that Headmaster of the Upper Primary Section cannot be appointed as a HSST. He, therefore, prays that Ext.P11 and the consequent Ext.P14 order of the Government confirming it, be set aside and that the competent Authority be directed to approve his appointment as Principal forthwith. 6. I notice that petitioner had initially filed W.P. (C) No. 22466/2020 stating that he is the Principal and that while so, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2020 constraining him to, therefore, file W.P. (C) No. 8593/2021, seeking that his retiral benefits be disbursed at the earliest. 7. I have heard Sri. Paulson Thomas - learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.M. Manoj learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents. 8. Sri. P.M. Manoj commenced his arguments in support of Exts.P11 and P14 in W.P. (C) No. 22466/2020, submitting that unless the petitioner is legally entitled to be appointed as an HSST (Jr), his appointment as the Principal of the Higher Secondary Section cannot be accorded by the Regional Director. He submitted that, going by Chapter XXXII of the KER, only a UPST could have been appointed as an HSST (Jr) and that since the petitioner was occupying the post of Headmaster of the Upper Primary Section, he could not have staked claim for such appointment. He submitted that, in spite of this, the Manager appears to have appointed the petitioner and it granted approval by the Regional Director through Ext.P7 in error. He argued that, therefore, said authority was justified in having cancelled Ext.P7, through Ext.P11 and for the Government to have confirmed it through Ext.P14. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 9. I have evaluated the afore submissions and have also gone through the materials available on record. 10. The essential issue is whether petitioner's appointment as HSST (Jr) in the year 2012 was irregular, solely because he was then occupying the post of Headmaster of the Upper Primary Section. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 9. I have evaluated the afore submissions and have also gone through the materials available on record. 10. The essential issue is whether petitioner's appointment as HSST (Jr) in the year 2012 was irregular, solely because he was then occupying the post of Headmaster of the Upper Primary Section. When one examines Chapter XXXII of the KER, it is without doubt that when there are no other candidates available, a LPST/UPST is certainly entitled to be appointed to the post of HSST (Jr)/HSST. 11. In the case at hand, there is no doubt that petitioner was working as a UPST, but he was then occupying the post of Headmaster of the said Section. I do not see from Chapter XXXII of the KER any distinction having been made between the Headmaster of the Upper Primary Section and a UPST and even on a close scan of all the provisions of the said Chapter, no separate classification has been made between the aforementioned two category of teachers. Normally, the senior most among the UPST will become the Headmaster of the Upper Primary Section and I cannot see how a person can be said to have lost his claim as a UPST merely because he becomes the Headmaster, based on seniority. This certainly would create an absurd situation where merely on account of a person being promoted as the Headmaster, he loses his chance to be appointed ‘by transfer’ to the post of HSST. There can be no doubt that this proposition cannot find favour in law because, going by Rule 43 Chapter XIVA of the KER, petitioner certainly would have obtained the right to be promoted as a High School Teacher, had such a vacancy arisen in the High School Section. 12. I, therefore, cannot fathom the rationale in the Authorities holding that the Headmaster of the Upper Primary Section cannot be appointed ‘by transfer’ as a Higher Secondary School Teacher. There is no such inhibition in Chapter XXXII of the KER and even on specific questioning, the learned Senior Government Pleader was not able to point out any such. 13. 12. I, therefore, cannot fathom the rationale in the Authorities holding that the Headmaster of the Upper Primary Section cannot be appointed ‘by transfer’ as a Higher Secondary School Teacher. There is no such inhibition in Chapter XXXII of the KER and even on specific questioning, the learned Senior Government Pleader was not able to point out any such. 13. In such circumstances, I have no doubt that the objections raised against the petitioner cannot obtain the imprimatur of this Court and therefore, dispose of these Writ Petitions in the following manner: (I).....(a) W.P. (C) No. 22466/2020 is allowed and Exts.P11 and P14 are set aside; with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent-Regional Director to consider the proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment as the Principal of St. Joseph's Higher Secondary School, Pullurampara, Kozhikode from 28.11.2017 until 31.03.2020 and to pay him all the eligible benefits and emoluments as per law. (b) The afore exercise shall be completed by the 3rd respondent as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (II) W.P. (C) No. 8593/2021 is ordered and the 3rd respondent is directed to make sure that all pensionary benefits eligible to the petitioner are also made available to him within a period of one month after the exercise as ordered above is completed.