G.P. Kunhappa and Others vs State and Others

Mrs. K.K. Usha, J.—Petitioners are teachers working in the school managed by the fourth respondent. The challenge in this original petition by these teachers is against the constitutional validity of Rule 45 of Ch. XIV A of K.E.R. to the extent it has granted a preferential claim to graduate teachers for appointment to the post of Headmaster in an aided U.P. School. The qualification held by the petitioners, according to the averments in the original petition, are S.S.L.C. and T.T.C. Petitioners contend that they are fully qualified to hold the post of U.P. School Assistants in view of the provisions contained under Rule 3 of Ch. XXXI of K.E.R. It is further alleged in the original petition that respondents 5 and 6, who are working as U.P. School Assistants in the school managed by the fourth respondent are not having the qualification of S.S.L.C. and T.T.C. but they hold the qualification of graduation with B.Ed. For the purpose of adjudicating the issues raised in this original petition, it is not necessary to embark on an enquiry as to how respondents 5 and 6 were happened to be appointed as U.P. School Assistants, if they were not having the qualification of S.S.L.C. or T.T.C. as there is no challenge against their appointment as U.P.S.A. in this original petition. Under Ch. III, no provision is made prescribing the qualification for appointment to the post of Headmaster in U.P. School. But, from a reading of Rule 45 Ch. XIV-A. It is discernible that even a teacher having the qualification of graduation with B.Ed. is entitled to be appointed as Headmaster In U.P. School. Rule 45 of Ch. XIV - reads as follows:

Subject to rule 44, when the post of Headmaster of complete U.P. School is vacant or when an incomplete U.P. School becomes a complete U.P. School, the post shall be filled up from among the qualified teachers on the staff of the School or Schools under the Educational Agency. If there is a Graduate teacher with B.Ed. or other equivalent qualification and who has got at least five years experience in teaching after acquisition of B.Ed. degree he may be appointed as Headmaster provided he has got a service equal to half of the period of service of the senior most undergraduate teacher. If graduate teachers with the aforesaid qualification and service are not available in the School or Schools under the same Educational Agency, the senior most Primary School Teacher with S.S.L.C. or equivalent and T.T.C. issued by the Board of Public Examination, Kerala or T.C.H. issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, Bangalore or a pass in Pre-degree Examination with Pedagogy as an elective subject conducted by the University of Kerala or any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant may be appointed.

The attack made by the petitioners against Rule 45 is two-fold. Firstly, it is contended that since the basic qualification for appointment to the post of U.P. School Assistant is S.S.L.C. with T.T.C. no teacher without such qualification can be appointed as Headmaster of the U.P. School. The petitioners rely on the decision of this Court in O.P. 2193/82, confirmed in W.A. 137/88 in support of their contention. Secondly, it is contended that a classification based on a higher qualification of B. Ed degree is arbitrary and it violates the equality clause contained under Art. 14 of the Constitution. According to the petitioners, when teachers with S.S.L.C. and T.T.C. are found qualified for promotion to the post of Headmaster, there is no justification for giving a preference to the graduate teachers with B.Ed. degree.

I do not find any merit in the contention that those who are not having the qualification of S.S.L.C. and T.T.C. are not entitled to be appointed an Headmasters in the U.P. School. As mentioned earlier, the qualification of a Headmaster in the U.P. School has not been prescribed under Ch. III as S.S.L.C. with T.T.C. Therefore, the decision of this Court in OP. 2193/82 and W.A. 137/88 have no application in the present ease. In the above decisions, this Court held that for appointment to the post of L.P. School Assistant, the qualification prescribed under Ch. XXXI is mandatory and therefore only those who are having S.S.L.C. or T.T.C. or its equivalent as prescribed under Ch. XXXI of K.E.R. can be appointed as Lower Primary School Assistants.

A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the preference granted to certain parsons having the qualification of graduation with B.Ed. for appointment to the post of Headmaster in U.P. School under Rule 45 of Ch. XIV-A of K.E.R. in a different context in W.A. Nos. 399 and 444 of 1974. This Court held that Rule 45 prescribes the qualification for appointment of Headmaster of U.P. School and if there is a graduate teacher with B.Ed. and he has the required years of experience, no teacher with S.S.L.C. or equivalent and T.T.C. could be appointed as Headmaster. In view of the wording of Rule 45, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the petitioners that the qualification of S.S.L.C. and T.T.C. is mandatory for appointment to the post of Headmaster in U.P. School. When there is a total prohibition of promotion of teachers with S.S.L.C. and T.T.C. if there are graduate teachers with B.Ed. having the necessary length of service, it cannot be contended by the petitioners that both the above groups were merged into a common category and thereafter there cannot be a further classification between the above two groups. The claim for the teachers with S.S.L.C. and T.T.C. would arise only in the absence of graduate teachers with B.Ed. having the prescribed length of service (Vide The State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa and Others, ). If the rule making authority felt that in order to discharge the duties of a headmaster of a U.P. School, higher qualification of graduation with B.Ed. would better suitable, it cannot be held that such a view is arbitrary. The higher qualification in this case is not a criteria which has no relevance in the object sought to be achieved, namely better administration of a U.P. School.

In view of the above, I am inclined to hold that the petitioners have failed to make out a case in support of their challenge against constitutional validity of Rule 45 of Ch. XIV A of K.E.R. In the result, the original petition fails and it is dismissed.