IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1304 of 2009(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.P.ABDURAHIMAN,S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 53 YEARS, HEADMASTER, A.M.L.P.SCHOOL,VADAKKUMMALA, AREACODE SUB-DISTRICT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER. AREACODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1304 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was promoted as Headmaster of A.M.L.P.S., Vadakkummala with effect from 15.7.1986. At that time, he had not completed fifteen years of service. He had also not acquired the required test qualification. Exemption was being granted to acquire the test qualification as per Rule 45B of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules. When the exemption was extended, it was challenged in O.P.No.2622 of 1986. This Court struck down the extension granted year after year. The decision of the learned single Judge was upheld in W.A.No.350 of 1987 (reported in 1987 (2) KLT 723). The matter was taken to the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) NO.6535 of 1988. It is stated that the Honourable Supreme Court directed the Government not to revert the existing Headmasters and to grant them one more chance to appear for the Account Test. On the basis of the direction issued by the Supreme Court, Ext.P2 Government Order, G.O.(Ms)NO.63/89/G.Edn. dated 8.6.1989, WPC 1304/2009 2 was passed. In Ext.P2 it was provided thus: (b) that those Headmasters who have not passed the Account Test (Lower) Examination yet and who are now holding the post of Headmaster on a temporary basis without being reverted as there were no test qualified juniors available for promotion as Headmaster; will not be reverted from the post of Headmaster. They will be given one more chance to get themselves fully qualified by appearing for the Account Test Examination when that examination that is conducted by the P.S.C. next time.” 2. The petitioner states that there was no test qualified teacher in the School and that the petitioner passed the Account Test (Lower) in November, 1989. The petitioner relies on the decision of the Full Bench in Indira v. State of Kerala (ILR 1998 (2) Kerala 771). The Assistant Educational Officer reverted the petitioner as teacher-in-charge with effect from 8.5.1987. As per Ext.P6 order dated 1.6.2006, the Director of Public Instruction issued orders cancelling the reversion of the petitioner stating that the petitioner is entitled to get appointment in the post of Headmaster from 8.5.1987 in terms of G.O.(Ms)No.63/89/G.Edn. dated 8.6.1989. It is stated that Ext.P6 has become final and conclusive. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that much later, the WPC 1304/2009 3 Deputy Director of Education objected to the pay of the petitioner and passed Ext.P15 order, which reads as follows: “Abdurahiman.V.P., HM, ALPS, Vadakkumala:- While working as HM on the strength of temporary exemption orders from Govt. acquiring departmental test qualification required for the post, he was reverted as teacher in charge from 8.5.87 and continued as such up to 7.12.89. He acquired the required departmental test qualification during the test conducted during November 1989 and promoted as HM on 7.12.89. During the period from 8.5.87 to 6.12.89 he worked as teacher in charge of the school and statutory powers delegated for the post of HM was exercised by the AEO during this period. But, he was granted scale of pay of primary school HM from 15.7.86 onwards on the basis of G.O.(P) 127/99/G.Edn. Dated 4.7.99. As per this GO, those persons appointed as HM prior to 15.9.88 are eligible for the scale of pay of HM without considering the length of service. But since he was not working as HM on 15.9.88 or before reverted as teacher-in-charge from 8.5.87 onwards he is not eligible for the scale of pay of HM before completing continuous 15 years of service. Therefore, the fixations of pay already granted from 15.7.86 onwards is to be revised (even if it was admitted before) and excess pay drawn got refunded.” The petitioner contends that settled matters cannot be reopened in the manner in which it was done in Ext.P15. Aggrieved by Ext.P15, the petitioner has filed Ext.P16 Revision dated 15.12.2008 before the Government. Ext.P16 is pending disposal. WPC 1304/2009 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Ext.P15 order is without jurisdiction and that it reopens settled matters. The counsel submits that the Deputy Director of Education has no jurisdiction to take a view as was taken by him in view of the earlier orders passed by the Government and the educational authorities. 5. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “a) Call for the records relating to Exhibit P15 and quash the original of the same by issue of a Writ of certiorari or other appropriate Writ or order. b) Declare that Exhibit P8, P9, P10, P11, P12, P13 & P14 fixations of pay of the petitioner are legal and valid. c) Direct the 1st respondent to effectively consider and pass appropriate orders upon Exhibit P16 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a time limit. d) Pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, for the present, the petitioner would be confining his relief to relief (c), reserving his right to the other reliefs at the appropriate stage. WPC 1304/2009 5 Learned Government Pleader submitted that the first respondent would dispose of Ext.P16 Revision expeditiously. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: i) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P16 Revision dated 15.12.2008 as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the affected parties, if any. ii) Till the disposal of Ext.P16 Revision, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P15 shall be kept in abeyance. iii) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl