IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 18742 of 2008(F) PETITIONER: JOHN ALEXANDER.A, UPSA, ST. JOSEPH'S UPS, PANGARAPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENTS: 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHERPU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, DEVAMATHA CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF C.M.I SCHOOLS, DEVAMATHA PROVINCIAL HOUSE, THRISSUR – 682 022. 4. SMT. ANNIE.A.K, HEADMISTRESS, ST. JOHN BOSCO'S LPS, VARANDARAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 18742 OF 2008 F -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th July, 2008 JUDGMENT On 15.7.1980, the petitioner was appointed as UPSA in St.Joseph's U.P.School, Pangarapilly, Thrissur District, which is an educational institution under the corporate management of the third respondent. It is stated that the petitioner is having the qualification of Pre-degree and training qualification of TTC and that he passed Account Test (Lower) also. There are other schools under the corporate management of the third respondent. It is stated that the fourth respondent is junior to the petitioner as the fourth respondent was appointed as LPSA only on 8.6.1982. 2. It is stated that vacancies of Headmasters arose in different schools managed by the Corporate Educational Agency of the third respondent. Applications were invited as per Ext.P2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application for selection to the post of Headmaster. The petitioner was invited for the interview as per Ext.P4 interview memo. He appeared for the interview on 15.3.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per Ext.P6, overlooking the seniority of the petitioner, the fourth respondent was appointed as Headmaster. W.P.(C) NO.18742 OF 2008 :: 2 :: 3. It is admitted that the School concerned is a minority educational institution. A Full Bench of this Court in Kurian Lizy v. State of Kerala (2006 (4) KLT 264 (F.B.)) has held thus: “... So, all minority educational institutions, which propose to select the best person to the post of Headmaster/Principal of a School or College, as the case may be, ignoring seniority in the feeder category or ignoring the available teachers, should frame and publish regulations or bye-laws, containing a transparent procedure, governing such selection. The publication can be made in the Notice Board of the educational institution concerned and a copy of it should be available in school/college library for reference. When superseding a senior qualified member of the minority community the reasons thereof should be clear from the records. The question as framed in the beginning of this order is thus answered accordingly.” The contention of the petitioner is that the third respondent has not followed the dictum laid down by the Full Bench. It is pointed out that no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner till date and that there was no complaint whatsoever against him. Challenging Ext.P6, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 statutory appeal dated 7.6.2008, before the District Educational Officer. Ext.P7 is pending disposal. 4. Notice before admission was ordered in the Writ Petition. Notice was served on the respondents. The party respondents have not entered appearance. Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2. W.P.(C) NO.18742 OF 2008 :: 3 :: 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since Ext.P7 appeal is pending disposal, I am of the view that relief Nos.(i) to (iii) are not maintainable at this stage. At the same time, the prayer No.(iv) is liable to be granted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: a) The first respondent shall consider Ext.P7 appeal and dispose of the same after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4, at the earliest and, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. b) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/