IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32829 of 2010(C) PETITIONER: --------------- ANNIE V.V., HEADMISTRESS, L.F.U.P.S., KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682017, RESIDING AT KOLATHARA HOUSE, PONEKKARA, AIMS P.O., KOCHI - 41. BY SENIOR ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI.DIJO SEBASTIAN SMT.VINEETHA SUSAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 016. 5. THE MANAGER, L.F.U.P.S., KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682017. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). NO. 32829 OF 2010 C ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as Headmistress of L.F.U.P.S. Kaloor on 1.4.2007, on a temporary basis, as per Ext.P5 appointment order and on a permanent basis on 5.7.2007, as per Ext.P7 appointment order. The reason why the petitioner was temporarily appointed was that she had not acquired the test qualification at that time. Later, on her acquiring the test qualification, Ext.P7 appointment order was issued. Both these appointments were approved by the Assistant Educational Officer, as revealed from the endorsements on Exts.P5 and P7. 2. Later, audit objection was raised by the Deputy Director of Education, as revealed from Ext.P8. The objection was that the senior claimant, namely, Jacob Mathew, was not considered for the appointment. The case of the petitioner is that Jacob Mathew permanently relinquished his claim for appointment as Headmaster. There was no objection to the appointment of the petitioner as W.P.(C) NO.32829 OF 2010 :: 2 :: Headmistress. Jacob Mathew had not raised any objection nor did he contend that the relinquishment was not proper. The Manager submitted Ext.P9(a) reply to Ext.P8 objection, in which, it is stated that Jacob Mathew had relinquished his claim for promotion to the post of Headmaster. The relinquishment was duly accepted by the Manager and it was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer. The next senior hand was the petitioner and she was granted appointment as Headmistress. 3. The Assistant Educational Officer, thereafter, addressed Ext.P10 communication to the Director of Public Instruction, in which, a request was made to cancel the “inadmissible approval granted to the appointment of Smt.V.V.Annie as Temporary Primary Headmistress with effect from 1.4.2007”. It is stated in Ext.P10 that the petitioner was working as Junior Hindi Teacher and that she did not have the qualification for being appointed as Headmistress. The request in Ext.P10 was only to cancel the appointment of the petitioner as Temporary Primary Headmistress with effect from 1.4.2007. There was no request to cancel the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress as per Ext.P7 appointment order dated W.P.(C) NO.32829 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 5.7.2007, though a reference was made in Ext.P10 regarding the appointment with effect from 5.7.2007. No orders were passed cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress. The petitioner submitted Ext.P11 representation before the Government requesting to drop further action pursuant to the audit objection and for issuing orders permitting the petitioner to continue as Headmistress relaxing the Rules. Ext.P11 is pending disposal. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no other person has staked the claim for being appointed as Headmistress. The senior claimant had relinquished his claim. No other teacher in the School had objected to the appointment of the petitioner. The Manager had also no objection to appoint the petitioner as Headmistress. The educational authorities approved the temporary appointment and permanent appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress. Therefore, it is contended that even if it is found that there is some deficiency in the qualification, this is a fit case where relaxation of the Rules can be granted under Rule 3 of Chapter I of the Kerala Education Rules. W.P.(C) NO.32829 OF 2010 :: 4 :: 5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification for being appointed as the Headmistress. Rule 45 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules prescribes the qualifications. The petitioner does not have T.T.C. qualification issued by the Board of Public Examinations, Kerala or T.C.H. issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board or a pass in Pre-degree Examination with pedagogy as an elective subject and B.Ed./B.T./L.T. conferred by or recognized by the Universities in Kerala. The learned Government Pleader also relied on the two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Manager, A.M.U.P.School v. State of Kerala (2001(1) KLT 155) and Saly Mathew v. State of Kerala (2002 (3) KLT 816). 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Division Bench decisions referred to above do not fully apply, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as in those decisions the qualification which the petitioner has acquired was not under consideration. 7. In Ext.P11 representation submitted by the petitioner to the W.P.(C) NO.32829 OF 2010 :: 5 :: Government, the petitioner has prayed for relaxation of the Rules in her case. That is a matter which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Government. The fact that there is no other claimant, that the petitioner's appointment on a temporary basis and on a permanent basis were approved by the Educational Officer as per Exts.P5 and P7, that the petitioner is continuing as Headmistress from 1.4.2007 onwards and the other admitted facts and circumstances also are required to be noticed while considering the question whether jurisdiction under Rule 3 of Chapter I of the Kerala Education Rules should be exercised by the Government. The counsel submitted that, for the time being, the petitioner would be satisfied if Ext.P11 representation is directed to be considered by the Government, after maintaining the status quo as on today and after reserving the contentions of the petitioner with respect to the two Division Bench decisions referred to above. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the request made by the petitioner is just and reasonable. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: W.P.(C) NO.32829 OF 2010 :: 6 :: (a) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P11 representation dated 3.9.2010, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the Manager and any other affected party. (b) Till the matter is decided by the Government, the status quo as on today shall be maintained. (c) The contentions raised by the petitioner are left open. (d) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent without delay. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/