High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
ANFLORANCE RUSSAL v. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION - OP No. 21646 of 1999(B)  RD-KL 12804 (12 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMOP No. 21646 of 1999(B)
1. ANFLORANCE RUSSAL
1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.G.RAJAGOPALAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.O.P.No.21646 OF 1999
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2007
The 5th respondent was appointed as the Headmistress of a school. She is admittedly senior to the petitioner. However, she had not cleared the obligatory departmental test in terms of Rule 44 A in Chapter XIV A, K.E.R. for appointment as Headmaster. The petitioner had such qualification. The 5th respondent appeared for such a test on 6.1.1998, that being the last date of the examination conducted by the Public Service Commission. Results were declared on 13.5.1998 by the PSC and published in the gazette on 6.10.1998. The vacancy against which the 5th respondent has been appointed arose on 1.4.1998, i.e., after the 5th respondent wrote the examination, but before the results were declared on 13.5.1998. The Note occurring after Sub Rule 1 of Rule 44 B in Chapter XIV A provides that the benefit of increment on passing the obligatory departmental test will be given from the last date of the qualifying examination. That Note also makes the last date of the qualifying examination to be OP.21646/99 Page numbers applicable for promotion to posts not involving change of duties. Therefore, having passed the examination, the last date of qualifying examination being 6.1.1998, the 5th respondent would be eligible for the benefit of the aforesaid Note, provided, such benefit is not being applied in relation to granting promotion to posts not involving change of duties. Rule 11 in Chapter IX K.E.R. enumerates the Headmaster's duties. A perusal of that Rule will show that the duties of a Headmaster are not the same as the duties of teachers as laid down in Rule 12 of Chapter IX. Therefore, a promotion from the post of teacher to that of Headmaster is a promotion involving change of duties. If that be so, a promotion cannot be effected from the post of teacher to Headmaster by relying on the Note to Rule 44 B in Chapter XIV A. Therefore, the impugned orders granting approval of the appointment of the 5th respondent as Headmistress in preference to the petitioner is illegal, being contrary to the Rules. The effect of the Note to Rule 44 B in Chapter XIV A K.E.R. is akin to that of Rule 28 bbb of Part II K.S. & S.S.R. OP.21646/99 Page numbers In the result, this writ petition is allowed quashing Exts.P1, P3 and P5 and declaring that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Headmistress of the school with effect from 1.4.1998 and such appointment is entitled to be approved by the statutory authorities with all necessary consequences in accordance with law. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb. OP.21646/99 Page numbers
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JO.P.NO.21646 OF 1999
12TH JULY, 2007.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.