Partly allowed

Rt.Rev.a.Dharmaraj Raslam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Aug 2019WA/1833/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals by a school manager against a single judge's order directing the appointment of a Headmistress as principal under the 2:1 seniority ratio. The High Court upheld the ratio, vacated the direct appointment, and directed the Government to conduct a proper selection from eligible Headmistresses within the agency.

What did the court decide?

Vacated the single judge's direction appointing the petitioner; directed Government to consider seniority of other eligible Headmistresses for selection.

Rt.Rev.a.Dharmaraj Raslam Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶6

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.1820 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2378/2018(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/4th RESPONDENT:

¶10

RT.REV.A. DHARMARAJ RASLAM S/O J.ALBERT, AGED 62 YEARS, BISHOP & CORPORATE MANAGER, CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA, SOUTH KERALA DIOCESE, LMS SCHOOLS, LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.G.SUDHEER SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308)

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 SREELATHA P.R W/O JOHN VICTOR, HEBRON, POOVANMULA, TRITHURPURAM, MADICHEL P.O.K.K.DISTRICT, KUZHITHURA, TAMILNADU STATE, PIN-629 163, WORKING AS HEADMISTRESS, LMS TAMIL HIGH SCHOOL, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 502.

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER SECONDARY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

3 DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

W.As.1820 & 1833/2019

¶17

¶18

4 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, CORPORATION BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶19

ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED

¶20

5 SAJEEV S. AGED 54 YEARS SON OF V.M.STANLY, PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE, L.M.S. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHEMBOOR, NEYYATTINKARA695 125, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶21

ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.8.2019 IN IA.3/2019 IN WA.NO.1820/2019.

¶22

R1 BY ADV. SRI.KULATHUR S.V. PREMAKUMARAN NAIR R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE R1 BY ADV. SRI.JIBU P THOMAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.REJIMON R5 BY ADV. V.A.MUHAMMED

¶23

OTHER PRESENT:

¶24

SR.GP SRI.A.J.VARGHESE FOR R2 TO R4

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1833/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

W.As.1820 & 1833/2019

¶27

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶31

¶32

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶33

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶34

WA.No.1833 OF 2019

¶35

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9662/2018(G) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶36

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶37

RT.REV.A.DHARMARAJ RASLAM

¶38

BISHOP AND CORPORATE MANAGER, CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA, SOUTH KERALA DIOCESE LMS SCHOOLS, LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶39

BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER

¶40

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶41

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶42

2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶43

3 DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUATION, DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶44

4 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, CORPORATE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶45

W.As.1820 & 1833/2019

¶46

¶47

5 SREELATHA.P.R., W/O.JOHN VICTOR, HEBRON, POOVANMULA, TRITHURPURAM, MADICHEL P.O., K.K DISTRICT, KUZHITHURA, TAMILNADU STATE, PIN-629 163, WORKING AS HEADMISTRESS, LMS TAMIL HIGH SCHOOL, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 502.

¶48

ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED

¶49

6 SAJEEV S. AGED 54 YEARS SON OF V.M.STANLY, PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE, L.M.S. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHEMBOOR, NEYYATTINKARA-695 125, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶50

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. 6TH RESPONDENT (3RD PARTY) AS PER ORDER DATED 19.8.2019 IN IA.5/2019 IN WA.NO.1833/2019.

¶51

R5 BY ADV. SRI.KULATHUR S.V. PREMAKUMARAN NAIR R5 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE R5 BY ADV. SRI.JIBU P THOMAS R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.REJIMON R6 BY ADV. V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶52

OTHER PRESENT:

¶53

SR.GP SRI.A.J.VARGHESE R1 TO R4

¶54

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.08.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1820/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶55

W.As.1820 & 1833/2019

¶56

¶57

JUDGMENT

¶58

[ WA.1820/2019, WA.1833/2019 ]

¶59

The appeals are by the Manager of a School and

¶60

the controversy is with regard to the appointment of

¶61

Principal to a Higher Secondary School on the retirement of the incumbent. The incumbent who retired also had

¶62

teaching duties in so far as she being a Higher Secondary

¶63

School Teacher (for brevity 'HSST') in English.

¶64

The writ petitions were filed by the Manager

¶65

and the Headmistress of a School under the educational

¶66

agency. When the vacancy of Principal arose on 1.6.2017,

¶67

the additional respondent, a HSST, who has been impleaded

¶68

in the appeals, was put as Principal-in-charge. The

¶69

Headmistress, petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2378 of 2018, in

¶70

challenge of the action of the Manager filed a representation

¶71

W.As.1820 & 1833/2019

¶72

¶73

before the Director of Higher Secondary Education to

¶74

consider her to the post of Principal. According to her,

¶75

since the vacancy had to be filled up as per 2:1 ratio in Rule

¶76

4 of Chapter XXXII of Kerala Education Rules (KER), she being the senior most Headmistress is eligible to the post of Principal. This Court in a writ petition filed by the Headmistress directed consideration. The Joint Director considered and directed appointment of Sreelatha P.R. (the HM) to the post of Principal.

¶77

The Manager filed an appeal to the Government which is still pending. The additional

¶78

respondent who is a HSST and who is now the Principal-incharge also filed a revision before the Government which is also pending consideration. The revision has also been

¶79

directed to be considered by a learned Single Judge of this

¶80

Court. The HM filed W.P.(C) No. 2378 of 2018 for

¶81

W.As.1820 & 1833/2019

¶82

¶83

implementation of the order of the Joint Director.

¶84

Subsequent to that, W.P.(C) No. 9662 of 2018 was filed by

¶85

the Manager challenging Rule 4 and the stipulation of 2:1

¶86

ratio as against the HSST's and HM's of the High Schools.

¶87

The learned Single Judge considered the

¶88

challenge against Rule 4 and found it to be not sustainable.

¶89

The post of Principal was directed to be filled up by appointment of Headmistress since it was found that she

¶90

was the only person who was available within the zone of consideration of HM's. The Manager has filed the two

¶91

appeals from the common judgment.

¶92

We first consider the challenge to the Rule

¶93

which was negatived by the learned Single Judge. The

¶94

learned counsel appearing for the appellant Manager has

¶95

submitted that the ratio was brought in only for reason of

¶96

the special situation in which Higher Secondary Courses

¶97

W.As.1820 & 1833/2019

¶98

¶99

were transferred to and commenced in the High Schools of

¶100

the various aided Schools. At that point, there was a

¶101

situation that there could not be HSST's with sufficient service to occupy the pivotal post of Principal. Hence, a stipulation was made that HM's could also be appointed as

¶102

Principal of the Higher Secondary Schools. Further, it is pointed out that, in so far as the Government Schools are concerned, the Government has by Ext.P6 produced in W.P.

¶103

¶104

HSST's would be entitled to be posted as Principal of Higher Secondary Schools. This was also on the reasoning as seen

¶105

in Ext.P6 that Headmaster's quota was incorporated in the

¶106

Special Rules for want of HSSTs having experience on the commencement of the Higher Secondary Courses. The same reasoning applies herein also is the contention.

¶107

W.As.1820 & 1833/2019

¶108

¶109

We have no quarrel as to the reasoning being

¶110

similar. However, we have to notice that even the Special

¶111

Rules applicable to the Government School Teachers have

¶112

not been amended as such. The KER also in Chapter XXXII provides for a ratio as of now. The prescription of a ratio and the removal of the same is the absolute prerogative of the Government. The learned Single Judge also found that the rule cannot be found to be either arbitrary or as framed without power. The contention of the appellant Manager in

¶113

the present case is also that, by passage of time, the ratio is no more necessary for the reason that the ground on which

¶114

it was incorporated has become redundant. This is good

¶115

reasoning for the Government to make amendment, but no judicial interference can be caused to the rule as such. It is for the Government to consider whether any amendment

¶116

should be made but till that is made we are to go by the

¶117

W.As.1820 & 1833/2019

¶118

¶119

ratio. In such circumstances, we uphold the judgment of the

¶120

learned Single Judge to the extent it refused to consider the

¶121

challenge against Rule 4. W.A. No. 1833 of 2019 is hence

¶122

dismissed.

¶123

The next grievance is on the finding that the

¶124

HM of the School is directed to be promoted and appointed

¶125

to the post of Principal. The first contention raised is that

¶126

the additional respondent being qualified, has to be

¶127

appointed in the post; especially since he is an HSST more conversant with the management of a Higher Secondary

¶128

School. We cannot agree, because, though the additional respondent has approved teaching experience at the Higher Secondary level as provided in Rule 6, the turn for appointment of a Principal happens to be conceded to the

¶129

HM's in the educational agency for reason of the ratio

¶130

provided of 2:1 as against HSST's and HM's. The ratio

¶131

W.As.1820 & 1833/2019

¶132

¶133

having not been interfered with by us, necessarily, the

¶134

selection can be made only from the zone of

¶135

consideration. A HSST does not come within the zone of consideration when the appointment has to be made from HM's. In such circumstances, we reject the claim now made

¶136

by the additional respondent.

¶137

We are told that the additional respondent has

¶138

filed a revision before the Government. However, the said

¶139

revision does not now fall for consideration especially by

¶140

reason of the findings entered by us in the above writ

¶141

appeals.

¶142

Now the question arises as to whether there

¶143

are any other HM's available in the School. The Manager

¶144

asserts that there are other HM's available in the School who

¶145

are also qualified under Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII KER. In such

¶146

circumstance, definitely the Manager of a minority

¶147

W.As.1820 & 1833/2019

¶148

¶149

educational institution has to be given the choice to appoint

¶150

the person of his choice, subject only to the condition that a

¶151

proper selection process is carried out.

¶152

We, on the above findings, vacate the

¶153

direction of the learned Single Judge to appoint the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2378 of 2018 as the Principal. As is submitted by the parties, the Manager has filed an appeal before the Government. While considering the issue, the Government shall look into whether there are any other persons holding the post of Headmaster who are entitled to

¶154

hold the post of Principal. With the above direction, we

¶155

dispose of W.A. No. 1820 of 2019.

¶156

The Manager shall produce the seniority list,

¶157

as on the date of arising of vacancy of Principal, of the educational agency showing the HM's who are eligible to be

¶158

considered within one week from today and the Government

¶159

W.As.1820 & 1833/2019

¶160

¶161

shall consider the appeal within three weeks thereafter.

¶162

Needless to say that the seniority and the eligibility has to

¶163

be looked into as on the date of occurrence of vacancy, i.e.,

¶164

1.6.2017. If there are other eligible HM's then the

¶165

Government shall direct a proper selection to be conducted

¶166

by the Manager or else Sreelatha P.R. shall be directed to be

¶167

appointed. No award of costs.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

SHIRCY V. JUDGE

Rt.Rev.a.Dharmaraj Raslam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rt.Rev.a.Dharmaraj Raslam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh, Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Rajesh, Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Chunakkara Vadakku Noorul Islam Jama Ath Vs State of Kerala

Rt.Rev.a. Dharmaraj Raslam Vs Sreelatha P.R

Dr. Abin Thomas Mathew, Vs the State Police Chief

The Director Vs the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala