IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 14812 of 2002(L) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE MANAGER, NALANDA TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE NANNIYODE, PACHA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ATTINGAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 14812/2002/L ORDER ON CMP NO.25012/2002 IN OP NO.14812/2002 DISMISED Sd/- 11.2.2008 S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 29.7.2000 ISSUED BY THE D.E.O. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTAITON DATED 18.1.2001 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1-6-2001 ISSUED BY THE D.E.O. EXT. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-4-2002 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P5: COPY OF THE NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR TEACHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS (RELEVANT EXTRACT) EXT. P6: COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATIONO ORDER DATED 27/10/01 ISSUED BY THE DEO, NEYYATTINKARA. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= O.P. No. 14812 of 2002 (L) ======================= Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the manager of the Nalanda Teachers' Training Institute. The Institute was started in 1962 with a demonstration school upto standard IV attached thereto. Later on, a UP School was also added to it in 1981. In 1993, the National Council for Teacher Education Act came into force pursuant to which standards for Teachers Training Institute were also prescribed. According to the petitioner, in view of the NCTE Act, the Teachers Training Institute and the school should be treated separately, with the TTI having duly qualified teachers as prescribed in the NCTE Act and therefore there should be a headmaster for the UP School as well as a Principal for the TTI. However, for the staff fixation order for the year 2000-2001, by Ext.P1, only one Headmaster's post was sanctioned for both. Petitioner challenged the same and ultimately by Ext.P4 order, the Government held that no separate post of Headmaster can be O.P. No. 14812/2002 -2- sanctioned for the UP School in addition to that of a Headmaster/Principal in the Teachers' Training Institute. Petitioner challenges Ext.P4. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the original petition are follows: "i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P4 and quashing the same. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to sanction a post of Headmaster in the U.P.Section of the demonstration school attached to the Nalanda Teachers Training Institute in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 5 of Chapter XXIII of the K.E.R. iii) grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including costs." 2. Petitioner's contention is that since the principal of the Teachers' Training Institute is vested with the onerous duties relating to the Institute, which the headmaster of the UP School cannot undertake there should be separate posts of Principal in the TTI and Headmaster in the UP School. Petitioner also points out a Teachers' Training Institute, namely Evans Training Institute, Parassala where there are both. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to sanction a separate post of Headmaster in the UP School in addition to the O.P. No. 14812/2002 -3- already sanctioned post of Headmaster for the TTI. The petitioner also refers to the provisions of Chapter XXV of the KER relating to Teachers' Training Institutes, as also provisions of the NCTE Act and the norms fixed by the NCTE for Teachers' Training Institutes. 3. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand submits that the Teachers' Training Institute is an integrated unit with the demonstration unit. According to her, there cannot be separate posts of Headmaster in the UP School and the Teachers' Training Institute. She relies on note (ii) to Rule 2 of Chapter II of the KER which says that a Lower Section shall be deemed to be attached to a Higher Section if and when it is under the same Headmaster as the Higher Section. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The petitioner could not bring to my notice any provision in the NCTE Act which stipulates that there should be separate posts of Headmaster in the demonstration school as well as the Teachers' Training Institute when a demonstration school is attached to a TTI. The fact that higher standards are prescribed for Teachers' Training Institute does not mean that the Headmaster of the O.P. No. 14812/2002 -4- Teachers' Training Institute cannot function as Headmaster of the demonstration school also. In the absence of any specific provision in the NCTE Act prescribing a separate posts of Headmaster in the demonstration school and the Teachers Training Institute, this Court cannot direct the Government to prescribe separate post of Headmaster's for both. Rule 2 of Chapter II of KER also supports this view. In the note (i)i to Rule 2, it is provided thus: "The terms 'Secondary School' and Training School' shall be taken to include Upper Primary and Lower Primary standards attached to them, if any and the term 'Upper Primary School shall be taken to include Lower Primary standards attached to it, if any. A Lower Section shall be deemed to be attached to a Higher Section if and when it is under the same Headmaster as the Higher Section." (underlining supplied) 4. The fact that in Chapter XXV, a Headmaster of the demonstration school is to be under the powers of the Headmaster of the Training School in academic matters does not mean that there should be separate posts of Headmaster for both. That only contemplates that there are separate Headmasters, the Headmaster of the demonstration school shall be under the Principal or the Headmaster of the Training School O.P. No. 14812/2002 -5- in academic matters. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the case of Evans Training Institute referred to by the petitioner, school started first to which the Teachers Training Institute was later added and there was already an existing post of Headmaster in the demonstration school when the Teachers Training Institute started. That is why separate posts of Headmasters are provided for both. In fact that shows the necessity of Rule 3 of Chapter XXV stipulating that the Headmaster of the demonstration school shall be under the control of the Headmaster of the TTI in academic matters. In the absence of any specific provision anywhere in the NCTE Act or in the KER to the effect that the demonstration school and Teachers' Training Institute shall have separate posts of Headmaster, this Court cannot direct the government to permit the petitioner to have separate Headmasters for the two. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp