Partly allowed

The Manager v. a.Ratnakaran

Kerala HC7 Jun 2016WA/1273/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed appeals against a single judge order which restored orders favouring a Headmaster's appointment. The court held that while Craft Teachers are excluded as Specialist Teachers under Rule 3, Chapter XXIII, they are included under Rule 34, Chapter XIV-A for promotion, making them eligible for Headmaster roles.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; the judgment under appeal dismissing the appeal and restoring the single judge order is upheld; no interference with the order directing the appointment as Headmaster.

The Manager Vs a.Ratnakaran — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/17TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶6

WA.No. 1273 of 2013 IN WP(C).31567/2012

¶7

----------------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31567/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 05-03-2013

¶8

APPELLANT/6TH RESPONDENT: -

¶9

THE MANAGER, DEVASEVA UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KANNADIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 604.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS: -

¶12

A.RATNAKARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.NANU, HEADMASTER-IN-CHARGE, DEVASEVA UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KANNADIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670604.

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670001.

¶16

DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PAPPINISSERI, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PAPPINISSERI, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001.

¶18

WA.No. 1273 of 2013 IN WP(C).31567/2012

¶19

¶20

A.P. PAVITHRAN, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, DEVASEVA UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KANNADIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670604.

¶21

BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. E.M. ABDUL KHADIR

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2016, ALONG WITH WA. 1442/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

DMR/-

¶24

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

¶25

---------------------------------------

¶26

W.A. No. 1273 of 2013 & W.A. No. 1442 of 2013

¶27

Dated this the 07^th day of June, 2016

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Antony Dominic, J.

¶30

These appeals are filed by the Manager and a Teacher of Devaseva Upper Primary School, Kannadiparamba, Kannur. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge set aside Exhibit P10 order passed by the Government and restored Exhibits P1, P2, P3 and P7 orders passed by the authorities under the Kerala Education Act and the Rules and ordered that the Manager shall appoint the first respondent as Headmaster of the School with effect from 01.04.2010. Consequential directions were also issued.

¶31

We heard the respective Senior Counsel who appeared for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the Government Pleader appearing for official respondents.

¶32

W.A. Nos. 1273 & 1442/13

¶33

¶34

The short question that is raised before us is whether

¶35

a Craft Teacher working in the School is a Specialist Teacher to be eligible for appointment as Headmaster of the School in question. According to the learned Senior Counsel, Craft Teacher is not included in the category of Specialist Teacher under Rule 3 of Chapter XXIII of Kerala Education Rules and therefore in Exhibit P10 order, the Government have rightly held that the first respondent is ineligible for the appointment as Headmaster. Having considered these submissions, though

¶36

we agree with the learned counsel that Rule 3 of Chapter XXIII KER, which enumerates the various categories of teachers as Specialist Teachers, Craft Teachers are specifically excluded from that category. However, when Rule 34 of Chapter XIV-A KER was amended by Exhibit P11 notification dated 07.03.2011 with effect from 18.12.1984, Clause (b) was incorporated therein which read thus:

¶37

“(b). In the case of Upper Primary Schools and Lower Primary Schools, a combined seniority list of Upper Primary School Assistants, Lower Primary School Assistants, Junior Language Teachers and Specialist Teachers specified in Rule 3 and 4 Chapter XXXI, shall

¶38

W.A. Nos. 1273 & 1442/13

¶39

¶40

be prepared. The purpose of the seniority list will be only to determine the position of persons eligible for promotion as Primary School Headmaster by virtue of length of service and prescribed qualifications for promotion as Primary School Headmaster.”

¶41

Reading of the above provision would show that in the case of Schools, such as the school in question, a seniority list to determine the position of persons eligible for promotion as Headmaster by virtue of length of service and prescribed qualifications for promotion is to be prepared. Such seniority list shall be a combined seniority list of teachers including Specialist Teachers specified in Rule 3 and 4 of Chapter XXXI KER. Rule 3(3) of Chapter XXXI KER enumerates the categories of teachers who are classified as Specialist Teachers. Among the various categories, Craft Teachers have been included at Serial No.V.

¶42

These rules clearly show that while the Government have excluded Craft Teachers from the category of Specialist Teachers for the purpose of Rule 3 of Chapter XXIII KER, for the purposes of promotion, as per Rule 34 of Chapter XIV-A KER read with Rule 3 and 4 of Chapter XXI thereof, Craft

¶43

W.A. Nos. 1273 & 1442/13

¶44

¶45

Teachers have been recognized as Specialist Teachers. This, therefore, means that Craft Teachers are eligible for promotion as Headmaster and, as rightly held by the learned single Judge, Exhibit P1, which takes a contrary view, is patently illegal.

¶46

Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Appeals are dismissed.

¶47

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶48

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE

¶49

DMR/-

The Manager v. a.Ratnakaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. a.Ratnakaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut Vs Shri.P.P.Bhaskaran

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut Vs Sri.M.Abdul Gadhafi

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin Vs M/S.Alapatt Brothers, COCHIN-11

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P.P.Bhaskaran

P.Vilasini Devi Vs P.Subhadra G.Nambiar

Biju Markose Vs the Intelligence Officer