The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“a. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents quashing Exts. P5, P7 and P10 orders passed by the 2nd respondent declining approval of appointment of Headmasters and also Exts. P12, P13 and P14 notices issued by the 2nd respondent.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction the 2nd respondent to approve the appointments of Sri. Wilson Mathew, M.A. Mathew and Mariakutty Mathew as Headmaster made by the petitioner and pay them salary and also to pay salary to Smt. Sheela T.A. whose appointment as Headmistress is already approved by the 2nd respondent;
c. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Grievance of the petitioner/educational agency is mainly with regard to the orders passed by the concerned respondents, whereby the rights and liberties of the petitioner to appoint Head Master of its choice in an aided school, which of course is a minority institution having protection under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India, have been adversely affected, which is sought to be intercepted in this writ petition. It is stated that by virtue of the impugned orders, the petitioner has been compelled to appoint Head Master from 'protected hands', which of course is not correct or sustainable and hence the challenge.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
4. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on the last occasion, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the legal position stands declared by this Court in Abraham A.G. and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. [2009 (3) KHC 557], whereby it has been made clear that the service rendered as a 'protected teacher' cannot be taken into consideration as service for the purpose of seniority in the parent school. Today, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that, by virtue of the decision rendered in Prasad Vs. Philipose Mar Dilshus U.P. School [2005 (3) KLT 487] with reference to Rule 45 of Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules, it has been categorically asserted that a protected teacher has no claim for the post of 'Headmaster', as he is not a member of the staff of that school, though he has a claim under Rule 51A.
5. With regard to the viability aspect, the learned Government Pleader points out that the Government has already issued Circular dated 24.03.2008, whereby it has been clarified that there is no restriction as such in filling up in vacancies of Headmaster to any 'uneconomic' schools. The impugned orders were passed more with reference to the financial status of the petitioner's school, making it obligatory to appoint Headmaster from 'protected teachers'. But in view of contents of Circular dated 24.03.2088 and the judicial precedents cited above, this Court finds that the petitioner is free to fill up the post of Headmaster without having any necessity to appoint a protected hand as the Headmaster. However, it is made clear that, the resultant vacancy shall be filled up only by protected hand, based on the list to be furnished by the competent authority of Education Department.
Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd