IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 3919 of 2007(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- KUMARI AMBIKA. M., H.S.S.T. (MATHS) VISWABHARATHY S.N.H.S.S., NJEEZHOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BENOY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MANAGER, VISWABHARATHY SNHSS, NJEEZHOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. N. SUJA, HEADMISTRESS AND PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE, VISWABHARATHY S.N.H.S.S., NJEEZHOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH. R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH, SRI.NAVEEN.T. R4 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 3919 of 2007(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) NO.338/2003/C.EDN. DATED 16/12/2003 ISSUED BY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. EXT.P1(a): COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 06/08/1999 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.43/2005/G.EDN. DATED 11/02/2006 ISSUED BY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.11/2006/GEL. EDN. DATED 06/01/2006 ISSUED BY GEL. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.290/2006/G.EDN. DATED 02/12/2006 ISSUED BY THE GEL. EDN. (T) DEPARTMENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/02/2005 IN SLP. NO.2748/2005 PASSED BY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.138/90/GEL. EDN. DATED 27/06/1990 ISSUED BY THE GEL. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 3919 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 14th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext. P4 Government Order on the ground that it is contrary to the Special Rules framed by the Government in respect of method of appointment and qualifications of teachers and non-teaching staff in aided Higher Secondary schools included in Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules. The petitioner's contention is that clause 4(ii) of Ext. P4 is contrary to the Rules. Clause 4(ii) reads as follows: “4. After examining the issue in detail, Government are pleased to order: xx xx xx (ii) Exemption to Principals from teaching in cases where the Higher Secondary Section does not have the subject of the Headmaster turned Principal for teaching.” The petitioner's contention is that the 4th respondent, who is a Headmaster turned Principal in accordance with the Full Bench decision of this court in Aided Higher Secondary School Teachers Association v. State of Kerala, 2005(1) KLT 94, is a sociology post-graduate and since in the Higher Secondary section, there is no subject of Sociology, she cannot be the Principal of the school since she cannot teach Sociology. In order to overcome this difficulty, the Government has issued Ext. P4 Government order exempting such Principals from teaching. The petitioner's contention is that this provision in Ext. P4 is contrary to the definition of “Principal” in the Rules. The said W.P(C) No. 3919 of 2007 -: 2 :- definition reads thus: “1. (f) 'Principal” means the teacher who acts as the academic and administrative head of the Higher Secondary School.” The petitioner submits that since the Principal should be a teacher, who acts as an academic and administrative head of the Higher Secondary schools, the Rules postulate that a Principal should be a teaching Principal. When Ext. P4 exempts Principles from teaching, that will be contrary to the definition of 'Principal” and therefore Ext. P4 executive order, which is inconsistent with the statutory rules, is liable to be set aside, is the contention raised. 2. I have heard the parties. 3. Merely because the word 'Principal' is defined as a teacher who acts as the academic and administrative head of the Higher Secondary School, that does not mean that the Principal should necessarily teach a subject. Admittedly, the 4th respondent is a teacher of the school. Only teachers who have been promoted as Headmaster can be the Headmaster turned Principal within the scope of the Full Bench decision. Insofar as Principal is a teacher, the fact that Ext. P4 grants exemption to Principals from teaching, does not necessarily come in conflict with the definition of 'Principals' in the Rules. That being so, I am not inclined to countenance the contention of the petitioner that Ext. P4 Government order is inconsistent with the statutory rules. W.P(C) No. 3919 of 2007 -: 3 :- In view of the above finding, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/