Allowed

S.Rajalakshmy, v. Sasidharan K.V.

Kerala HC8 Oct 2020WA/1308/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court rejected the claim for appointment of a rival as Headmaster-in-Charge. The Court held that the Single Judge erred by making an appointment without hearing the appellant, a senior employee who was temporarily in the post. The appeal was allowed to quash the lower court's appointment and direct the Manager to consider rival claims.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of the learned Single Judge set aside; Manager directed to consider rival claims of appellant and respondent within one month; status quo maintained.

S.Rajalakshmy, Vs Sasidharan K.V. — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 16TH ASWINA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.1308 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18401/2020(A) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT:

¶10

S.RAJALAKSHMY, AGED 53 YEARS

¶11

W/O. B. MOHANKUMAR, LAKSHI VILAS BUNGLOW, CHAKKUMKANDAM P.O., PALUVAI VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680522.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 SASIDHARAN K.V.

¶15

AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. SANKARAN NAIR, HSA (MALAYALAM), SREE KRISHNA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, GURUVAYOOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680101.

¶16

2 THE MANAGER,

¶17

SREE KRISHNA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT680305.

¶18

3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680506.

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SMT. RAJI. T. BHASKAR- G.P. SRI. R.K. MURALEEDHARAN -R1. SRI. T.K. VIPIN DAS - R2

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.No.1308/2020

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of October 2020

¶26

Shaffique, J.

¶27

This appeal is filed by a person, who is not a party to the proceeding, after seeking leave of Court. The subject matter in issue is regarding appointment of a person as Headmistress-in-Charge. The appellant herein, who was working as HSA in the Sreekrishna Higher Secondary School, Guruvayoor was given charge of Headmistress, when Smt. Latha, who was working as Headmistress, was appointed as the Principal of the Higher Secondary School. According to the appellant, she was the senior most High School Assistant and therefore, she was given charge of the Principal. Smt. Latha's appointment as Principal was not approved by the educational authorities and as a result of which she had to be reverted to the post of Headmistress in the said School. Smt. Latha filed W.P.(C)No.17014/2020 before this Court and by an interim order dated 18.08.2020, this Court directed the official respondents to maintain status quo as on 21.7.2020 permitting Smt. Latha to work as Principal till a final decision is taken on Ext.P5 revision petition filed by the Manager. It is submitted that no orders had been so far passed in Ext.P5 referred to in the said case and the said writ petition is still

¶28

W.A.No.1308/2020 3

¶29

pending and Smt.Latha, therefore, continues as Principal of HSS and the reversion did not take place. In the meantime, W.P.(C)No.18401/2020 is filed by one Sri. Sasidharan K.V. claiming to be a qualified HSA to be posted as Principal-in-Charge. He contended that the appellant herein, though was appointed as Headmistress-in-Charge, was not test qualified, though she was senior to him and therefore, he should be given charge of Headmaster in the High School Section. The learned single Judge, by judgment dated 16.9.2020, allowed the writ petition directing the Manager to appoint Sri. Sasidharan K.V., subject to his qualification as the Headmaster of the School.

¶30

The appellant herein, Smt. S. Rajalakshmy, who was earlier appointed as Headmistress-in-charge, has approached this Court inter alia contending that, though she was the person, who was appointed as Headmistress-in-Charge, without impleading her as a party to the proceeding, the above writ petition came to be filed and an order was obtained behind her back.

¶31

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent Sri. R.K. Muraleedharan, Sri. T.K.Vipin Das, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent-Manager of the School and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 3^rd respondent.

¶32

W.A.No.1308/2020

¶33

¶34

Apparently, this is a case where the appellant was appointed as Headmistress-in-Charge on account of the fact that she was the senior most HSA, in the vacancy of Smt. Latha. Though orders were passed reverting Smt. Latha to the post of Headmistress, she continues to be the Principal of HSS on account of an interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C)No.17014/2020. Necessarily when she is not reverted back and she continues in the post of HSST, the normal procedure is that Smt. Rajalakshmy continues to be the Headmistress-in-Charge. But, it seems that without making her as a party to this proceedings, the above writ petition came to be filed. On the basis of an order passed by the learned single Judge, the 1^st respondent herein is now appointed as the Headmaster-in-Charge of the School. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would submit that the appellant herein did not have test qualification and therefore, the learned single Judge was justified in directing the Manager to appoint the 1^st respondent as Headmaster-in-Charge.

¶35

Having regard to the fact that there was a rival claimant and that she was not heard before this Court directing the Manager to appoint the 1^st respondent as Headmaster-in-Charge, it is only appropriate to direct the Manager to consider the rival claims and pass an appropriate order. In the result, we dispose of this writ appeal as under:-

¶36

W.A.No.1308/2020

¶37

¶38

The judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the Manager is directed to consider the rival claims of the appellant and the 1^st respondent and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and until such time status quo shall be maintained.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

acd

W.A.No.1308/2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/07/2020 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE EC1-1855/2020.

¶51

ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE HEADMISTRESS TO THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICE DATED NIL.

¶52

ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07/08/2020.

¶53

ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/08/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶54

ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DATED 21/07/2020.

¶55

ANNEXURE 6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP(CIVIL) NO.12310/2020.

S.Rajalakshmy, v. Sasidharan K.V.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajalakshmy, v. Sasidharan K.V.

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

The Secretary to Government Vs Xavier V.X.

Athira Sadhu (Employee Code NO.5527) Vs Union of India

Rajeeva Lochanan K R Vs Sunil Barthwal

Union of India Vs Sumathi Ravichandran

S.Vijaya Kumar Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Sumathi Ravindran Vs Union of India