Narayana Menon vs The Manager, P.V.S.H.S. and Others

Chandrasekhara Menon, J.—Rule 44 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules requires that the appointment of Headmasters shall ordinarily be according to seniority. The Manager has to appoint the Headmaster subject to the rules laid down in the matter.

It might be noted that under Sections 7 of the Kerala Education Act the Manager of a school has been made responsible for the conduct of the school in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Kerala Education Act has therefore made the Manager of a school as a statutory functionary. He has got powers and obligations under the Act.

In view of the statutory nature of his authority, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can compel him to perform his functions in conformity with the Statute.

Rule 44 makes it clear that in the absence of any extraordinary circumstance the Manager is bound to conform to the principles of seniority in the matter of appointment of a Headmaster. No doubt the seniormost hand must be duly qualified.

Rule 44A of Chapter XIV-A states that subject to the provisions contained in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 44, the minimum service qualification for appointment as Headmaster in aided complete High Schools/Training Schools shall be twelve years of continuous graduate service with a pass in the test in the Kerala Education Act and Kerala Education Rules and pass in Account Test (Lower); conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Under Rule 44-B(2) persons who attain the age of 50 years will be granted permanent exemption from passing the test. It may be noted that the granting of exemption to a person over 50 being mandatory under Rule 44-B(2) it has to be taken that a person with twelve years of graduate service and who is over 50, whether he has passed the test in the Kerala Education Act and Kerala Education Rules as well as in the Account Test (Lower), is duly qualified to be appointed as Headmaster. And if he is the seniormost hand, he has to be so appointed unless there are any special reasons which should positively be established for the Manager to overlook his claims.

It is certainly true that the word ''ordinary'' gives a certain amount of elasticity to Rule 44 and what the rule stipulates is that when the other things are equal seniority shall prevail. It might be noted that equality is a founding faith in our Constitution. And unless the statutory authority the Manager is able to establish that for any positive reasons a person cannot be appointed as Headmaster the court can certainly direct the appointment of such person if he is the seniormost hand and duly qualified to be appointed as Headmaster.

On the basis of the above principles I have no hesitation in directing the Management of the school, the 1st Respondent, to appoint the Petitioner as Headmaster of the High School concerned forthwith. Petitioner is the seniormost High School Assistant with more than 30 years of service. He is a graduate. He has thus got more than 12 years of continuous graduate service. As is clear from Ext. P-1 the educational authorities have recognised his claim to be the Headmaster. He had previously acted as Headmaster of the school. He is over 50 years and in regard to tests he stands permanently exempted.

The Manager is clearly wrong in stating the Petitioner refused to furnish details of his qualifications. Very properly the Petitioner had stated that his qualifications are duly entered in his service book which could be perused and verified by the Manager. In the counter-affidavit the Manager gives certain instances which according to him would indicate that the Petitioner is unworthy of being a Headmaster. In no case the Petitioner has been charged of lapses or misconduct on his part and he has been asked to explain or reply to such charges. In the circumstances I find no reason why the Petitioner''s claim to the post of Headmaster would be overlooked. Therefore I direct the Manager to appoint the Petitioner as Headmaster fort with. The Original Petition is allowed with costs.