IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16287 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEELA PAUL, W/O.CYRIL M.V., HSA (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), S.V.H.S, CHERIYANAD, MAVELIKKARA EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SMT.P.S.PREETHA SRI.SAIJU S. SRI.C.SINOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER OF CATHOLIC SCHOOLS, BISHOPS HOUSE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM-691 305. 4. SRI.JOHN.J., H.S.A., S.V.H.S. CHERIYANAD, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R1, R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 16287 of 2010 I ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as High School Assistant(Physical Science) in S.V.H.S., Cheriyanad. The post of Headmaster in the said school became vacant on 01-04-2010 consequent to the retirement of one Smt.Marykutty on 31-03-2010. Thereupon, the third respondent issued Ext.P1 order appointing the fourth respondent as teacher in charge. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P1 is unsustainable as it was passed without considering the legitimate claim of the petitioner for promotion as Headmaster of the said school. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the fourth respondent is ineligible to be considered for appointment as Headmaster of the school as on 01-04-2010 and at the same time, she is fully qualified for the said post. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent did not have 12 years of continuous service, which is one of the qualifications for appointment to the post of Headmaster. Raising such contentions, the petitioner has approached the second respondent through Ext.P4. Since Ext.P4 was not taken up for consideration, WPC.16287/2010 : 2 : she has filed Ext.P5 representation before the first respondent requesting to consider her claim for promotion as Headmaster. Despite the receipt of Exts.P4 and P5, no action has so far been taken thereon. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are threatening to transfer her with a view to make her to withdraw Exts.P4 and P5. The petitioner, therefore, apprehends an imminent transfer. It is in these circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 2. Indisputably, the post of Headmaster in the school belonging to the third respondent became vacant on 01-04-2010. Necessarily, the claims of eligible High School Assistants are to be considered with reference to the qualifications of the claimants on the date of occurrence of vacancy. Evidently, the fourth respondent was appointed not as Headmaster but only as a teacher in charge as per Ext.P1. 3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent in this writ petition. It is stated therein that Rule 44A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules stipulates, subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 44, the WPC.16287/2010 : 3 : qualifications for appointment to the post of Headmaster. 12 years continuing graduate service with a pass in a test in the Kerala Education Rules and pass in Account test conducted by the Public Service Commission are the qualifications for such an appointment, it is stated therein. At the same time, in the statement, it is stated that the qualifications claimed to have been acquired by the petitioner have not been incorporated in her service book. The petitioner has submitted reply to the aforesaid statement. It is stated therein that on 18-06-2010 all the qualifications acquired by the petitioner have been duly incorporated in her service book. That apart, Exts.P6, P7 and P8 would reveal that the petitioner possess the prescribed qualifications. In the said circumstances and also in view of the specific statement with respect to the qualifications made in the statement filed by the first respondent, I am of the view that the second respondent has to consider Ext.P4, expeditiously. With respect to the grievance relating transfer, it is only an apprehension. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a WPC.16287/2010 : 4 : direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks