IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 9 of 2011(A) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MARIE HAZEL ROZARIO, AGED 54 YEARS, H.S.A., ST.ANTONY'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KACHERIPADY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR, SMT.P.A.ANITHA, SMT.S.MEERA, SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR, O/O.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-682 001. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, THRISSUR O/O. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-682 001. 3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF THE SISTERS OF ST.TERESA, ST.TERESA'S ANNEXE, PRESS CLUB ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 011. 4. SMT.E.C. JESSY, HEADMISTRESS, ST.JOSEPH'S CONVENT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR-682 006. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.9 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a High School Assistant in an aided school. She claims to be the senior most among the High School Assistants in the school who are eligible to be promoted as Headmistress. But the 3rd respondent- manager preferred the 4th respondent for promotion as Headmistress. Against the same, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Education Officer which was rejected by Ext.P1 order on the ground that the institution is a minority institution and it is their discretion to appoint headmistress of their choice from among the qualified teachers of the school. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur which was also rejected by Ext.P3 order on the same ground. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 & P3 orders seeking the following reliefs: “i) call for the records leading to Exts. P1 and P3 and issue W.P.(C)No.9 of 2011 -2- a writ in the nature of certio rari, quashing Exts.P1 and P3 forthwith, ii) declare that the petitioner is legally entitled to be promoted as Headmistress with effect from 01.04.2010 and that the 3rd respondent has no manner of right or authority to deny the petitioner her legitimate promotion on the ground that the institution enjoys minority status, iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to issue orders promoting /appointing the petitioner as Headmistress in the St. Joseph's CGHS, Thrissur, with effect from 01.04.2010 and also to grant all the benefits attached to the post of Headmistress forthwith,” The petitioner has no case that the 4th respondent is in any way disqualified to hold the post as headmistress. Her only contention is that the 4th respondent is junior to the petitioner and therefore the promotion given to the 4th respondent overlooking the seniority of the petitioner is illegal and not transparent. The petitioner would contend that notwithstanding the minority right, before promoting a junior, the petitioner should have been informed about the reason why the petitioner is being overlooked for promotion. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. The Supreme Court has laid down the law relating to W.P.(C)No.9 of 2011 -3- minority rights of educational institutions wherein it has been categorically held that the management of the minority institution has a discretion to make a choice from among qualified persons of the establishment for appointment as headmistress. For the same seniority is not a consideration. If the petitioner is to be informed about the reason for choosing another, then the very minority right would be rendered otiose. In view of the settled legal position, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/