Allowed

Manager, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Mar 2024WP(C)/21541/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed orders refusing the approvement of the 6th respondent's appointment as Head Master of an aided school. It directed the 4th respondent to reconsider eligibility, minority institution status, and to pass orders within three weeks. Pending decision, the 5th respondent should continue in charge.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders were quashed. The 4th respondent is directed to reconsider the appointment issue within three weeks. The 5th respondent is permitted to be in charge pending the final decision.

Manager, Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7THDAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 21541 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER :-

¶6

MANAGER,

¶7

V.V.M. H.S.S., MARAKKARA, KAREKKAD P.O., (VIA)
KADAMPUZHA, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676553

¶8

BY ADVS.
S.M.PREM
H.NARAYANAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

¶12

3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MALAPPURAM, KOTTAPADI, DOWNHILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676519

¶13

4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEAR MINI CIVIL STATION, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676101

¶14

5SURESH KUMAR KADAVATH
HST (MATHS), V.V.M. H.S.S., MARAKKARA, KAREKKAD P.O.,
(VIA) KADAMPUZHA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676553
6R.V. SASI
HSST (SOCIAL SCIENCE), V.V.M. H.S.S., MARAKKARA,
KAREKKAD P.O., (VIA) KADAMPUZHA, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
676553
BY ADVS.
J.G.SYAMNATH
K.RAJEEV
SRI.PREMCHAND R NAIR, SR.GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 21541 OF 2023

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner, who is the Manager of an aided Higher Secondary School has approached this Court challenging the orders passed, refusing to approve the appointment of the 6th respondent as the Head Master of the School. By Ext.P10 order dated 12.08.2021, the 5th respondent was given the charge as Head Master. The rejection of approval was challenged and was rejected on the ground that the application seeking approval of the appointment as HM was belated. This was done as per the order dated 05.05.2023, Ext.P20. It was also stated that the 6th respondent was not present on 10.09.2021 and that nobody had taken charge till 31.03.2023. Accordingly, finding that the 6th respondent has not taken charge, the proposal dated 10.09.2021 was not approved as the application was belated.

¶20

Later, by Ext.P21 order dated 11.05.2023 it was found that the 6th respondent was not qualified and that the only qualified teacher available was the 5th respondent. It is also a ground that the Manager did not make an appointment for the vacancy that arose on 01.06.2021 and that it was postponed.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner – Manager, and the

¶22

WP(C) NO. 21541 OF 2023

¶23

¶24

learned counsel for the 6^th respondent submit that the 6^th respondent is qualified to be appointed as Head Master and the school being a Minority Institution, they were entitled to appoint the 6th respondent based on the qualification. It is also pointed out that the 6th respondent is due to retire on 31.05.2024.

¶25

In the above circumstances, the entitlement of the 6th respondent to be appointed as H.M. has to be reconsidered by the 4th respondent – DEO. In case the 6th respondent is found to be qualified, the impact of the school being a Minority Institution shall also be reckoned. Orders in this regard shall be passed within three weeks from today with notice to the petitioner, the 5^th and 6^th respondents and after affording them the opportunity to be heard. A hearing shall be conducted within two weeks' time, and orders shall be passed within a week thereafter. The orders impugned are accordingly quashed. Till a decision is taken as directed above, the 5th respondent is permitted to be in charge charge as directed in Ext.P10.

¶26

The writ petition is allowed as above.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

SMA

¶31

WP(C) NO. 21541 OF 2023

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21541/2023

¶34

PETITIONER EXHIBITS :-

¶35

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE` `2021`	`COPY OF ORDER` `ISSUED BY THE`	`NO. B1/2725/21 DATED 30-06-` `4TH RESPONDENT – DEO`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE` `04-08` `THE 5`	`COPY OF THE O` `-2021 DIRECTIN` `TH RESPONDENT`	`RDER NO. B1/2588/2021 DATED` `G THE PETITIONER TO APPOINT`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE` `06-08` `DEO`	`COPY OF THE O` `-2021 ISSUED B`	`RDER NO.B1/24631/2021 DATED` `Y THE THEN 4TH RESPONDENT –`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE` `08-20`	`COPY OF ORDER` `21 ISSUED BY T`	`NO. B1/2588/2021 DATED 09-` `HE THEN 4TH RESPONDENT – DEO`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE` `DATED`	`COPY OF THE` `11-08-2021`	`ORDER NO. B1/2588/2021 (1)`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE` `DATED`	`COPY OF THE` `11-08-2021`	`ORDER NO. B1/2588/2021(2)`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE` `DATED`	`COPY OF THE` `12-08-2021`	`ORDER NO. B1/2588/2021(3)`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE` `DATED`	`COPY OF THE` `12-08-2021`	`ORDER NO. B1/2588/2021(4)`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE` `DATED`	`COPY OF THE` `12-08-2021`	`ORDER NO. B1/2588/2021(5)`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE` `DATED`	`COPY OF THE` `12-08-2021,`	`ORDER NO. B1/2588/2021(6)`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE` `2022,` `2021`	`COPY OF THE C` `PASSED IN W.P`	`OMMON JUDGMENT DATED 23-08-` `. (C) NOS. 17757 & 17812 OF`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE` `16-09`	`COPY OF THE N` `-2022`	`OTICE NO.B1/2588/2021 DATED`

¶36

WP(C) NO. 21541 OF 2023

¶37

¶38

Exhibit P13TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-08-2022
PASSED IN W.P. (C) NO. 16731 OF 2021
Exhibit P14TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. B4/12285/2021 DATED 06-
10-2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT - DDE TO
THE PETITIONER TO ATTEND THE HEARING FIXED ON
13-10-2022
Exhibit P15TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18-10-2022 PASSED IN
W.P. (C) NO. 33056 OF 2022
Exhibit P16TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 07-11-2022 PASSED IN
W.P. (C) NO. 33056 OF 2022
Exhibit P17RUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06-12-2022
PASSED IN W.P. (C) NO. 33056 OF 2022
Exhibit P18TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 10-09-2021
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER APPOINTING THE 6TH
RESPONDENT

¶39

Exhibit P19RUE COPY OF ORDER NO. B1/2588/21 DATED 19-10-
2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT - DEO
REJECTING THE APPROVAL OF EXHIBIT P18
APPOINTMENT

¶40

Exhibit P20TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERNO.
EM2/13229/2022/D.G.E. DATED 05-05-2023
Exhibit P21TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERNO.
EM2/14430/2022/D.G.E. DATED 11-05-2023

¶41

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS :-

¶42

Exhibit R5(1)A true copy of the order dated 17-10-2022
passed by the 3rd respondent

¶43

Exhibit R5 (2)A true copy of the revision petition dated 24-
03-2023 submitted by the 5th respondent before
the 1st respondent

¶44

WP(C) NO. 21541 OF 2023

¶45

¶46

Exhibit R5 (3)A true copy of the order of the 2nd respondent
dated 11-05-2023

¶47

Exhibit R5(4)A true copy of the revision petition dated 26-
05-2023 submitted by the 5th respondent before
the 1st respondent

¶48

Exhibit R5 (5)A true copy of the order of the 2nd respondent
dated 05-05-2023

¶49

Exhibit R5 (6)A true copy of the RTI application dated 28-03-
2023 submitted by the 5th respondent

¶50

Exhibit R5 (7)A true copy of the reply to the RTI application
dated 24-04-2023 submitted by the 5th
respondent

Manager, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manager, 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

Jiji G Vs State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government

Amalnath. R Vs Department of Physical Education

Anil Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Subin Chacko Vs Union of India

Abhijith P Vs State of Kerala

Dr. M. Ganeshkumar Vs State of Kerala