IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011/2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1676 of 2006 ( ) ======================= (AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 23/08/2006 IN WP(C) NO.12547/2006) APPELLANT(S) / 3RD RESPONDENT ============ 1 DR.P.T. SREEKUMAR, S/O.N. PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI AGED 47 YEARS, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER IN POLITICAL SCIENCE, K.K.M. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VANDITHAVALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S) / PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 4 ============= 1 SRI.G. VINCENT, PRINCIPAL, K.K.M. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VANDITHAVALAM, PALAKKAD. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3 THE MANAGER, K.K.M. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VANDITHAVALAM, PALAKKAD. 4 SMT.U.P. PADMINI, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER IN MALAYALAM, K.K.M. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VANDITHAVALAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.SAJAN VARGHESE.K SRI.S.RAMESH SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN SRI.NAVEEN.T SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH MR.GEORGE MECHERIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-11-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1676/2006 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-I : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN COC NO.606/2005. ANNEXURE-II : COPY OF DECISION REPORTED IN 2008(2) KLT 281. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.A. No.1676 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding 1st respondent's selection and appointment as Principal of the Higher Secondary School. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and learned Government Pleader for the State. 3. After hearing learned counsel for both sides and on going through the judgment and the annexures produced with the WP(C), we notice that selection of Principal is from among qualified teachers with 12 years' teaching experience in the School. A selection committee was constituted with Manager as the Chairman and two independent members in the panel. The results and evaluation are produced as Exts.P1(a) & P1(b), wherein we see that the 1st respondent has secured the W.A.No.1676/2006 2 highest marks, which is substantially higher than the appellant's. So much so, the appellant cannot claim any priority over the 1st respondent in the rating given by the selection committee. 4. The only question now worth considering is whether the experience of the 1st respondent in High School can be reckoned as teaching experience for the purpose of appointment as Principal in Higher Secondary School. No doubt the 1st respondent has 6 years teaching experience in High School and another 6 years and 5 months experience in Higher Secondary School, when he was considered for selection. The Rules recognise that service in High School will be treated as teaching experience for the purpose of selection of Principal in Higher Secondary School. The appellant has a case that since he has 13 years service in Higher Secondary School itself, he is senior and should be preferred over the 1st respondent. However, we notice that all the remaining 5 persons other than the appellant also had 13 years service as W.A.No.1676/2006 3 teacher in Higher Secondary School and most of them have secured higher grade in the selection process over the appellant. Of course, the Rules provide that when other conditions remain equal, experience in Higher Secondary School will be counted. This only means that if in the grading by the committee two persons come equal, the person with longer experience in the Higher Secondary School will get selected. This principle has no application in this case as the 1st respondent stands head and shoulder above all other candidates. We therefore see no merit in the Writ Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jg