IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19533 of 2005(A) ------------------------ PETITIONER : -------------------- SHIRLEY MATHEW, ASSISTANT TEACHER, M.M.A.L.P.SCHOOL, CHELOOR, PUNNATHALA P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUTTIPPURAM. 2. THE MANAGER, M.M.A.L.P.SCHOOL, PUNNATHALA, MALAPPURAM. 3. R.MAMMAD, ASSISTANT TEACHER, M.M.A.L.P.SCHOOL, CHELOOR, PUNNATHALA P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP,. BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. L.G. SURESH BABU R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.19533 OF 2005 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a graduate with B.Ed. and had passed Account Test also. She was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the L.P.School, of which the 2nd respondent is the Manager. 2. The claim is for promotion as Headmistress in a vacancy which arose from 1.5.2005 due to retirement. The petitioner claimed appointment on the basis of higher qualification. But, the Manager appointed the 3rd respondent, who is a TTC hand, in terms of seniority. The petitioner filed a request before the Assistant Educational Officer objecting the approval of the 3rd respondent. That was rejected as per Exhibit P3, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. As far as appointment of Headmaster/Headmistress in the L.P.Schools are concerned, the relevant rule is Rule 45A of Chapter XIV-A of KER. Therein, seniority alone is the criteria. As far as graduate teachers are concerned, such a claim is possible only for appointment of Headmaster in a UP School. W.P.(C)No.19533/05 -2- 4. It evident from Exhibit P3 that the 3rd respondent was preferred in terms of the qualification as well as seniority. 5. In that view of the matter as the petitioner is not having seniority over the 3rd respondent, the claim cannot be sustained, evidently. Therefore, the Assistant Educational Officer has rejected the claim rightly and no interference is called for in the matter and hence the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn True copy P.A.to Judge