The petitioner, an aided school teacher, was appointed as Headmaster by the fourth respondent Manager as per Ext.P1 appointment order dated 1.4.2013. The appointment was in a retirement vacancy which arose consequent on the retirement of the incumbent Smt.V.N.Girija on 31.3.2013. The District Educational Officer, Chavakkad declined to approve the appointment by Ext.P2 order dated 2.1.2014 on the ground that the petitioner had relinquished promotion on 6.9.1982. Though the Manager as well as the petitioner filed appeals before the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur, the appellate authority rejected the appeal filed by the Manager by Ext.P5 order passed on 11.4.2014. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 revision petition before the State Government accompanied by a stay petition wherein she has prayed for stay of operation of Exts.P2 and P5 orders so as to enable her to continue as Headmaster of the school pending disposal of the revision petition. The petitioner has in Ext.P7 revision petition relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Usha Thayyil v. State of Kerala, W.P(C)No.12333/2014 -:2:- 2009 (4) KLT 1, to contend that a teacher who has relinquished his/her claim for promotion to the post of Headmaster can stake his/her claim when another vacancy in that post arises subsequently and therefore, the orders passed by the District Educational Officer, Chavakkad and the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur are liable to be set aside. In this writ petition the petitioner inter alia prays for an order directing the State Government to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 revision petition after affording her and the Manager of the school an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner also prays for an order directing the Manager of the school to permit her to continue as Headmaster until such time as Ext.P7 revision petition is heard and disposed of.
2. It is evident from a reading of Ext.P2 as well as Ext.P5 orders passed by the District Educational Officer, Chavakkad and the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur respectively that they have declined to approve the petitioner's appointment on the short ground that at an earlier point of time she had relinquished her claim for the post of Headmaster. A Full Bench of this Court has in Usha Thayyil v. State of Kerala, 2009 (4) KLT 1 considered a similar question and held that on every occasion W.P(C)No.12333/2014 -:3:-
when the Manager appoints a junior overlooking a senior claimant, the consent of the senior claimant has to be obtained and that a teacher who has relinquished his/her claim for promotion to a post of Headmaster can stake his/her claim when another vacancy in that post arises subsequently. Such being the situation, I am of the considered opinion that until such time as the Government takes a decision on Ext.P7 revision petition, the petitioner's continuance as Headmaster should not be disturbed. It is also relevant in this context to note that even going by the impugned order the petitioner is the seniormost teacher.
In such circumstances I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the State Government to hear and dispose of Ext.P7 revision petition after affording the petitioner and the Manager of the school an opportunity of being heard expeditiously and in any event within an outer limit of four months from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition, complete in all aspects, before the Secretary to Government, General Education Department. The Government shall after orders are passed on Ext.P7 revision petition communicate copies thereof to all the parties simultaneously. Until such time as orders are passed on Ext.P7 revision petition W.P(C)No.12333/2014 -:4:-
the operation of Ext.P2 order passed by the District Educational Officer, Chavakkad and Ext.P5 order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur, shall stand stayed. The petitioner will however, be entitled to salary and allowances applicable to the post of Headmaster only after the revision petition is disposed of and her appointment approved. Needless to say, this will not stand in the way of the petitioner from being paid salary and allowances applicable to the lower post as a provisional measure.
ahg.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
--------------------------- W.P.(C).No.12333 of 2014 ----------------------------
JUDGMENT
21st May, 2014