IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WA.No. 2041 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.8720/2001 Dated 21/02/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER NO.2. ------------------------------ P.A.AJITHKUMAR, S/O.MADHAVAKURUP, PARIMADOM L.P. SCHOOL, P.O.NEW MAHE-673 311. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH SRI.MOHAMMED SHAMEEL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS AND PETITIONERS 1 & 3 -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY, NORTH. 4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY, SOUTH. 5. T.K.SURENDRAN, S/O.CHATHUKUTTY, HEADMASTER, PULLIYODE WEST L.P.SCHOOL. 6. M.VENUGOPALAN, S/O.M.K.GOVINDAN NAIR, KAVUMBHAGAM L.P.SCHO OL, THALASSERY NORTH, KANNUR-670 110. ADV. SRI.G.BIJU FOR R5 & R6 MS.T.B.RAMANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- W.A. No.2041 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to grant the relief prayed for by the appellant/petitioner, that is Head Masters' grade of pay for the period prior to 01/02/1991. 2. The appellant joined the School as a Teacher in 1984 and within three years of his joining the School, vacancy of Head Master arose. In the absence of a qualified person, the appellant was appointed as the Head Master. But it is specifically stated in the order that the posting is as probationer. Even though experience for appointment as Head Master, i.e. 15 years' service, was introduced only later, the appellant had not passed Accounts test to make him eligible for appointment as Head Master. However, the appellant's case is that through various Government Orders, those who were appointed as Head Masters without the qualification, were WA No.2041/2009 -2- given extension of time to acquire the qualification. The appellant, in fact, passed the test in June 1990, and therefore, according to him, even for period prior to that he should be given Head Masters' pay. However, learned Government Pleader submitted that Rule 45B of Chapter XIVA K.E.R. provides for appointment of Head Masters only if the teacher has Accounts test qualification. Therefore, those who are appointed without qualification should be treated as Teacher-in-Charge and Head Masters' grade of pay could be paid after such person passes the test. This contention of the learned Government Pleader was accepted by the learned Single Judge, against which this Writ Appeal is filed. A School, necessarily, has to have a Head Master and in the absence of a qualified person, senior most person should be given the charge of the Head Master. However, this does not mean that an unqualified person can get all the benefits of pay of the Head Master and so much so, whatever be the phrasiology used in the appointment order, we feel the appointment should have been made under the Rules, which make it mandatory that the teacher appointed as Head Master should have Accounts test qualification. WA No.2041/2009 -3- The appellant is granted Head Masters' pay and allowances from 01/02/1991 i.e. soon after passing the test qualification. We do not think there is any justification for the appellant to claim Head Masters' pay for periods prior to the said date when he did not have the test qualification. Moreover, his appointment itself as Head Master specifically states that it is on probation, which means that to get appointment regularised, the appellant has to pass the test. The relaxation could only help the unqualified teachers to continue as Teachers-in-Charge and not as regular Head Masters. So much so, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg