Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1179 (KER)

Fazil E v. State of Kerala

2025-05-13

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. The petitioner, who is a Non Vocational Teacher and Principal-in-Charge of MM Oriental Vocational Higher Secondary School, Panayappilly, Ernakulam, seeks to declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue as the Principal-in-Charge of the School till he relinquishes the right to be appointed as Principal voluntarily. 2. The petitioner states that he is the seniormost Teacher in the School. He has an exemplary service record. He was conferred with National Award for his outstanding contributions to NSS related activities. He was also conferred “Sath Sevana Rekha” in recognition of his dedicated service. 3. By Ext.P12, the 4 th respondent-Manager of the School declared that the petitioner has relinquished the charge of the Principal. The petitioner states that he was not given an opportunity of hearing before passing Ext.P12 order. He was put in charge of the Principal as per the relevant Government Orders. Ext.P12 proceedings have been issued to enable the 4 th respondent to obstruct the inquiry to be initiated by the 2 nd respondent based on a complaint from Parent Teachers Association. 4. Respondents 4 and 5 opposed the writ petition filing counter affidavit. Respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the petitioner is not the seniormost Teacher in the School. The petitioner is more than six years junior to the 7 th respondent. The petitioner, without intimating the Manager and without applying for any kind of leave, disappeared from the School on 06.01.2025. The petitioner produced a discharge summary from a Naturopathy Hospital. Naturopathy is not a recognised stream of treatment for illness. Therefore, the story of the petitioner that he required immediate treatment cannot be accepted. 5. Ext.R4(g) would show that the petitioner had delegated his leave sanctioning power and attendance related matters to a Clerk. The petitioner failed to discharge his duties as Teacher. The 3 rd respondent had stated that the petitioner, for the last three academic years, has not taken a single class for first year. 6. The 7 th respondent also filed an affidavit. The 7 th respondent also stated that the petitioner is not the seniormost Teacher. The petitioner has demonstrably failed to discharge his official duties as Chief Examiner and Head of the Institution. The writ petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. 6. The 7 th respondent also filed an affidavit. The 7 th respondent also stated that the petitioner is not the seniormost Teacher. The petitioner has demonstrably failed to discharge his official duties as Chief Examiner and Head of the Institution. The writ petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3. I have also heard the respective learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7. 8. The petitioner would contend that he is the seniormost Teacher in the School. He was conferred with National Award for his contributions to NSS related activities. He was also bestowed with “Sath Sevana Rekha”. The petitioner was appointed as the Principal in Charge on 01.06.2020. 9. The petitioner would contend that he had to take leave as he was admitted to Naturopathy Hospital. By Ext.P12 order, the Manager has directed the petitioner to handover all relevant documents, records and responsibilities to the 7 th respondent. 10. Ext.R7(a) seniority list would show that the 7 th respondent is senior to the petitioner. If Ext.R7(a) is a genuine document, then the petitioner cannot, as of right, claim that he should be retained as Principal in Charge. Apart from the afore facts, the petitioner is also accused with not attending the School, without submitting leave application. 11. In the facts of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P12 order. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P13 representation before the 2 nd respondent. Therefore, the 2 nd respondent can consider the grievances raised by the petitioner and take appropriate decision in the matter. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 2 nd respondent to consider Ext.P13 representation of the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon after hearing the affected parties. Orders shall be passed within a period of three months.