IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 12687 of 2010(I) PETITIONER: --------------- MARY KIND, AGED 54, W/O.JOSEPH ATTIPETTY, RESIDING AT ATTIPETTY HOUSE, TRIKKAKARA TEMPLE ROAD, KENT VILLA, TRIKKAKARA, HSA, ST.RITA'S HIGH SCHOOL, PONNURUNNI, KOCHI-19, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.G.BASIL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ARCH-DIOCESE OF VERAPOLY, ST.ALBERT'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL CAMPUS, KOCHI-682018. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 3. ANNA.K.P, HEADMISTRESS, ST.MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL, VALLARPADAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. P.C.JOSE, HEADMASTER, ST.JOSEPH'S HIGH SCHOOL, CHATHIATH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R3 AND R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.GEORGE WILLIAM SMT.REKHA NAIR R1 BY SENIOR ADV.SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI.DIJO SEBASTIAN SMT.VINEETHA SUSAN THOMAS GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SSLC BOOK SHOWING THE DATE OF BIRTH OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P1(a) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE NO.05/88 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, NARAKKAL. EXT.P2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF LETTER DATED 7.7.92 ADDRESSED TO THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER. EXT.P3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SERVICE CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24.1.2010 TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON PROMOTION ORDER NO.4026/2010-C DATED 31.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3.5.2010 SUBMITTED UNDER RTI ACT BY BAISIL ATTIPETTY ALONG WITH THE REPLY DATED 31.5.2010 RECEIVED FROM FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3.5.2010 SUBMITTED UNDER RTI ACT BY BAISIL ATTIPETTY ALONG WITH THE REPLY DATED 1.6.2010 RECEIVED FROM THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3.5.2010 SUBMITTED UNDER RTI ACT BY BAISIL ATTIPETTY ALONG WITH THE REPLY DATED 1.6.2010 RECEIVED FROM THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST DATED NIL. EXT.R1(b) TRUE COPY OF LIST SHOWING THE QUALIFIED SENIORS OF THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. EXT.R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 4.12.2009. EXT.R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FROM MS.ANNIE M.P. DATED 4.3.2010. EXT.R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FROM MS.KUNJUMOL MATHAI.A., DATED 6.3.2010. EXT.R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FROM MR.P.C.JOSE DATED 9.2.2010. EXT.R1(g) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FROM MS.ANNA.K.P. DATED 11.2.2010 EXT.R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES RECOMMENDED FOR PROMOTION BY THE COMMITTEE, DATED 22.3.2010. EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST. //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). NO. 12687 OF 2010 I ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as H.S.A.(Physical Science) in St.Rita's High School, Ponnurunni under the corporate management of the first respondent. According to the petitioner, she is the next eligible teacher to be appointed as Headmistress in any of the schools under the corporate management of the first respondent. However, respondents 3 and 4 were appointed as Headmistress of St.Mary's High School, Vallarpadam and Headmaster of St.Joseph's High School, Chathiath respectively. 2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “(i) To declare that the petitioner is the next eligible teacher to be promoted as HM in the 1st respondent's school run by the educational agency before effecting promotion to 3rd and 4th respondents. W.P.(C) NO.12687 OF 2010 :: 2 :: (ii) To declare that the action of the 1st respondent in promoting 3rd and 4th respondents is unjust, unfair, illegal and void ab initio. (iii) Restrain the 3rd and 4th respondents in discharging their public duty as HM of the 1st respondent's respective schools run by the educational agency. (iv) The 2nd respondent may be directed not to approve the promotion of 3rd and 4th respondents. (v) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as HM of any of the schools of 1st respondent educational agency forthwith. (vi) Such other relief as deem fit necessary in the interest of justice to the petitioner.” 3. According to the petitioner, she is senior to respondents 3 and 4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent is senior to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the schools under the corporate management of the first respondent have minority status and therefore, the Manager need not appoint the W.P.(C) NO.12687 OF 2010 :: 3 :: senior most teacher as the Headmaster. It is sufficient if a fair selection procedure is adopted and eligible persons are appointed as Headmaster. The learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that such a procedure was followed and qualified persons (respondents 3 and 4) were appointed as Headmasters. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent also raised an objection that there is an effective alternative remedy for the petitioner to file an appeal under Rule 44 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 5. Rule 44 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules provides that a teacher aggrieved by the appointment of a Headmaster shall have the right of appeal to the Department. In the present case, the District Educational Officer, Ernakulam is the authority to approve the appointment of Headmasters. The proposal for approval of appointment of respondents 3 and 4 would be forwarded to the District Educational Officer and he has to consider W.P.(C) NO.12687 OF 2010 :: 4 :: the question of approval of appointment of respondents 3 and 4. In that process, he is bound to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 44 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even assuming that the minority status of the institution under the first respondent is accepted, it has to be shown before the educational officer that a fair process of selection was adhered to by the management in the matter of appointment of respondents 3 and 4. This is a matter to be looked into by the District Educational Officer. 7. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 have not been approved and the approval was declined by the District Educational Officer on the ground that the minority status of the educational institution was not established by producing relevant documents. 8. If the District Educational Officer has already declined W.P.(C) NO.12687 OF 2010 :: 5 :: approval of the appointment of respondents 3 and 4, nothing survives in this Writ Petition. However, the petitioner would be entitled to file a formal appeal under Rule 44 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules before the District Educational Officer. No further directions are necessary in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed with the above observations. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/