IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30638 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY,ARCH DIOCESE OF TRICHUR, TRICHUR BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPT., GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM. 3. DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. PHILOMINA M.A. RETD. PRINCIPAL, ST.ANTONY'S H.S.S.,AMMADAM, THRISSUR. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MUHAMOOD T.T THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.30638 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th November,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner herein is the Corporate Manager of a Corporate Educational Agency, Thrissur. The matter relates to the non-approval of appointment of 4th respondent as Principal in St.Antony’s Higher Secondary School established by the Corporate Educational Agency. She was appointed as Principal with effect from 2.5.2006 in the light of the minority right conferred under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that when she so appointed she was the senior-most teacher, for appointment in the said post. 2. By Ext.P2, certain documents were required by the 2nd respondent to which a reply was forwarded as per Ext.P3. Second respondent took the stand as per Ext.P4 that the appointment cannot be approved since the Selection Committee Minutes as per Special Rules has not been furnished. Fourth respondent challenged the same in W.P. (C) No.8361/08 , wherein, a direction was issued to 3rd W.P ( C) No.30638 of 2009 2 respondent herein to take a decision on 4th respondent's representation. The 3rd respondent finally rejected the 4th respondent’s request as per Ext.P6. Again, a revision petition has been filed as per Ext.P7. Government rejected the revision petition as per Ext.P8 stating that the appointment was not in accordance with the Special Rules. Petitioner is now relying upon Ext.P9 amendment of the Kerala Education Rules, whereby, the relevant rules have been modified. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the light of the above, the 2nd respondent has to approve the appointment of the 4th respondent. Ext.P10 is the proceedings which shows that the minority status have been conferred on the institution also. 3. Learned Government Pleader on instructions, submitted that to enable the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter, petitioner will have to submit a proposal and if the same is resubmitted in terms of the amended rules, the same can be considered and appropriate orders will be passed. W.P ( C) No.30638 of 2009 3 If the petitioner submits a proposal to the 2nd respondent, he will pass a fresh order in terms of the amendment of the rules, expeditiously. Writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE ma W.P ( C) No.30638 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No.30638 of 2009 5