IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 RP.No. 437 of 2010(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6530/2007 Dated 06/07/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C): -------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(A&E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR. S. RAMESH BABU - GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN WP(C): ----------------------------------------------- 1. ALPHONSA ENGRATIDA P.J., RETIRED PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MOOKKANNOOR. 2. JOSE P.P., RETIRED PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MOOKKANNOOR. 3. ANNAMMA K.M., RETIRED PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL(BOYS), PERUMBAVOOR. 4. ISHA M.R., RETIRED PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS), ALUVA. 5. MARTHA THARIATH, RETIRED PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. UMAYAMMA T.V., RETIRED PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NORTH PARAVUR. 7. RAMAKRISHNAN K.P., RETIRED PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ R.P.NO.437 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) No.6530 OF 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of MAY, 2010 ORDER This review petition is filed seeking review of my judgment dated 6.7.2009 in W.P.(C)No.6530/07. The review petition proceeds on the basis that the post of Principal came into force only with effect from 6.1.2006, when the Government sanctioned the posts of Principals in Higher Secondary Schools. The learned Government Pleader relies on the decision of the Full Bench in Aided Higher Secondary School Association V. State of Kerala [2005(1) KLT 94 (FB)]. On going through that decision, I am of opinion that the reading of the decision by the learned Government Pleader is not correct. More than one Division Bench has already held that the post of Principal came into force immediately on promulgation of the Special Rules on 12.11.2001. W.A.No.92/2007 is one such case. 2. In that decision, the Full Bench decision referred to above was also considered and explained in paragraphs 8,9 and R.P.No.437/10 2 10 thus: “8. Therefore, the Full Bench has taken note of the fact that as per the Rules in Chapter XXXII K.E.R. vide category No.1 therein, the post of Principal was made compulsory to every school. That means the post was available in the school. In such circumstances what shall be the import of the direction just before this statement that the Government is directed to give sanction and approval to the post? It can be gathered only from the later part of the paragraph wherein it has been held that “it is for the Government to fix the scale of pay of Principal. It can be on a special scale of pay or special allowance to that of a Senior Higher Secondary School Teacher in category No.II”. Thus what the Full Bench directed was to sanction post with a particular scale of pay or with special pay because the post of Principal which is compulsory for every institution categorised as No.1 in the Rules was already available. That was why it has been directed to be filled as per the Rules. It was a post with the same scale of pay as that of a Higher Secondary School teacher. That was why it was found that the Government has to fix the salary scale. This is further evident from the observation that “if the appointments are made as per the Rules, that should be approved, if not already approved”. 9. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that the post has been sanctioned only as per G.O.(MS) No.11/06 dated 6.1.2006 cannot be accepted. In the light of all these what can be gathered is that the purport of that G.O. was to give sanction of the post of Principal in the scale of pay of Rs.7200-11400. This can only be the interpretation in the light of the dictum laid down in Shaji v. Ramachandran [2003 (2) K.L.T.814], a judgment of the Division Bench which has been specifically referred to by the Full Bench. In paragraph 23 thereof it has been held as under: “23. As already noticed R.3 provides that “the service of every aided Higher Secondary School shall consist of all or any of the.....categories of posts as the Director may sanction.” The post of Principal is a solitary post in category 1. Categories 2 and 3 relate to the appointment school teachers in two different scales. These relate to 39 subjects. Thus, the R.P.No.437/10 3 Rule clearly provides that there shall be a Principal and teachers. So far as the sanction of the post is concerned, in our view, the Director has no discretion in the matter of office of the Principal. He can only make a choice in respect of the other categories whereby he can lay down that there may be no teacher to teach the subjects like German, Latin, Russian languages or those in which the number of students is not adequate. However, it shall not be open to the Director to say that the School shall function without a Principal who alone can be the Academic and Administrative head. In view of this position, the contention that the appointment of the 6th respondent cannot be approved, as the post of Principal has not been sanctioned, is wholly untenable. It cannot be sustained.” 10. That was also a case wherein filling up of posts of Principal in an Aided Higher Secondary School has been considered. It has been made clear that going by the Rules in Chapter XXXII K.E.R., a post has already been sanctioned to every school as categorised in the said Rules. Therefore, that Division Bench held that “the rule clearly provides that there shall be a Principal and teachers. So far as the sanction of the post is concerned, in our view, the Director has no discretion in the matter of office of the Principal. He can only make a choice in respect of the other categories whereby he can lay down that there may be no teacher to teach the subjects like German, Latin, Russian languages or those in which the number of students is not adequate. However, it shall not be open to the Director to say that the School shall function without a Principal who alone can be the Academic and Administration Head.” Therefore, there was a post existing from the proclamation of the Rules as contained in Chapter XXXII with effect from 12.11.2006 onwards'. (The date of the rules is wrongly given in the judgment as '12.11.2006' instead of '12.11.2001'). As such, the contention in the review petition does not R.P.No.437/10 4 appeal to me. Therefore, no grounds have been made out for review of my judgment. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd R.P.No.437/10 5