BY AD vs SRI.BEJOY JOSEPH P.J.

BY ADVS. C.K.SHERIN A.LOWSY(K/000914/2002) SMT.ANIMA M, GOVERNMENT PLEADER-R1-R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.03.2025 AND THE COURT ON 11.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 3 : N. NAGARESH, J. ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No.15427 of 2024 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The petitioner, who is working as LPST in the School managed by the 6th respondent, seeks to quash Ext.P11 and to compel the 1st respondent to direct the Manager to promote the petitioner as Headmaster in the School.

2. The petitioner states that she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the 4th respondent-School from 09.06.1997. The appointment was approved as per Ext.P1. The petitioner has passed all the Departmental Tests.

3. Sri. Askar K., Headmaster, retired from service on 30.04.2021 giving rise to a vacancy of Headmaster from

01.05.2021. The petitioner is the seniormost Teacher having W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 4 : more than 24 years of service. As the petitioner has passed all Departmental Tests, she is eligible to be appointed as Headmaster.

4. The Manager, however, appointed the 5th respondent as Headmaster. The petitioner submitted an appeal before the Assistant Educational Officer stating that she is the seniormost Teacher entitled to be promoted as HM and that the Manager has not followed the procedure laid down by the Full Bench of this Court while filling up the post of Headmaster. The AEO, as per Ext.P7 order dated 22.10.2022, rejected approval to the appointment of the 5th respondent as Headmaster, holding that the Manager has not followed the dictum laid down by this Court in Kurian Lizy v. State of Kerala [2006 (4) KLT 264] and relevant Government Orders. The Manager preferred an appeal before the District Educational Officer. The DEO also rejected the appeal as per Ext.P8 order dated 15.11.2022.

5. The Manager preferred a further appeal before the Additional Director of General Education. The Additional W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 5 : Director found that the School has minority status and therefore the Manager can appoint a Teacher of the minority community as Headmaster. The petitioner belongs to General Category and therefore, at the instance of the petitioner, the discretion exercised by the Manager cannot be interfered with. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P11 order dated 01.04.2024 of the Additional Director.

6. The counsel for the petitioner urged that a Full Bench of this Court in Kurian Lizy (supra) has held that in the matter of appointment of Headmaster/Principal of a School or College, the selection procedure should be fair, reasonable and transparent. The eligible members of the minority community may not have a feeling that they have been superseded without any valid grounds. All minority educational institutions proposing to select best person to the post of Headmaster/Principal ignoring seniority in the feeder category, should frame and publish Regulations or Bye-laws containing a transparent procedure governing such selection. The law laid W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 6 : down by the Full Bench in Kurian Lizy (supra) is ignored by the 6th respondent. The 1st respondent is a statutory authority and the 1st respondent is bound to give cogent reasons for rejecting the findings of the AEO and the DEO. In the facts of the case, Ext.P11 is liable to be set aside and the 1st respondent is compellable to direct the Manager to promote the petitioner, contended the counsel for the petitioner.

7. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 5th respondent stated that the petitioner heavily relies on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Kurian Lizy (supra). In view of Ext.R5(f) judgment of the Apex Court, the principle of fair procedure stipulated by the Full Bench has become otiose. Therefore, Ext.P8 order issued by the Deputy Director is not liable to be interfered with.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 7 :

9. The argument of the petitioner in short is that a Full Bench of this Court in Kurian Lizy (supra) has held that in the matter of appointment of Headmaster/Principal in minority educational institutions, the selection procedure should be fair, reasonable and transparent and all minority Educational Isnstitutions intending to appoint Headmaster/Principal ignoring seniority of Teachers, should frame and publish Regulations or Bye-laws, containing a transparent procedure governing such selection. The 6th respondent has not followed the Full Bench judgment. Therefore, selection and appointment of the 5th respondent is illegal.

10. In the judgment in Kurian Lizy (supra), the Full Bench of this Court held as follows: We notice that in many cases senior teachers belonging to the minority community, which runs the institution are superseded without assigning any reason. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India is an armour to protect the minority against the legislative and executive actions of the State, which is normally controlled by the majority. The said armour cannot be used as a weapon against other members of the same minority community. The protection under Article 30(1) is to the minority community and for the minority community. The Manager may supersede W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 8 : the members of other communities and also members of the minority community, who are found unsuitable for promotion to the post of Headmaster. But there may be teachers, who are, in every respect, qualified and suitable to head a minority educational institution. The management may select the best among them. The selection procedure should be fair, reasonable and transparent. The eligible members of the minority community may not have a feeling that they have been superseded without any valid grounds. So, all minority educational institutions, which propose to select the best person to the post of Headmaster/Principal of a School or College, as the case may be, ignoring seniority in the feeder category or ignoring the available teachers, should frame and publish regulations or bye-laws, containing a transparent procedure, governing such selection. The publication can be made in the Notice Board of the educational institution concerned and a copy of it should be available in school/college library for reference. When superseding a senior qualified member of the minority community the reasons thereof should be clear from the records. A reading of the judgment of the Full Bench would indicate that the procedure is prescribed in order to protect senior Teachers belonging to the minority community, in the matter of selection and appointment of Headmaster/Principal in minority educational institutions. The petitioner does not belong to the minority community. Therefore, the petitioner cannot impugn the selection on the basis of non-adherence to the directions W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 9 : given by the Full Bench.

11. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the judgment in Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew and others [(2017) 15 SCC 595] that once management of a minority educational institution makes a conscious choice of a qualified person from the minority community to lead the institution, as the Headmaster or Principal, court cannot go into the merits of the choice or the rationality or propriety of the process of choice, as the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India is absolute. In view of the law laid down by this Court and by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I do not find any illegality in Ext.P11 order passed by the Additional Director (Academic) of General Education. The writ petition fails and it is hence dismissed. aks/09.04.2025 Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 10 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15427/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 09.06.1997. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DATED 22.11.2018. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DATED 22.11.2018. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DATED 22.11.2018. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE MANAGER DATED 03.08.2021. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 10.06.2021. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER BEARING NO. B/10985/2021(1) DATED 22.01.2022. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER BEARING NO. B5/197541/2022 DATED 15.11.2022. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11/2023 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION DATED 19.12.2023. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 11 : G4/238938/2022 DATED 01.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION. RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS Exhibit R-5 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER BY PROMOTION DATED 01.05.2021 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit R-5 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT DATED 01.05.2021 Exhibit R-5 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF LIST OF THE SCHOOL AS ON 01.01.2021 Exhibit R-5 (d) Exhibit R-5 (e) Exhibit R-5 (f) Exhibit R-5 (g) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F. NO. 761 OF 2016 DATED 25.01.2017 ALONG WITH CERTIFICATE DATED 25TH JANUARY 2017 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2007 KHC 5043=2007 (1) KLT 22 (SECRETARY, MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC COLLEGE V. T. JOSE AND OTHERS DECIDED ON 27.11.2006) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2017 (4) KHC 83=2017 (3) KLT 713 (MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY V. JAMES MATHEW AND OTHERS DECIDED ON 11.07.2017) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 878/2018 DATED 28.09.2022 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KUTHUPARAMBA

BY ADVS. C.K.SHERIN A.LOWSY(K/000914/2002) SMT.ANIMA M, GOVERNMENT PLEADER-R1-R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.03.2025 AND THE COURT ON 11.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 3 : N. NAGARESH, J. ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No.15427 of 2024 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The petitioner, who is working as LPST in the School managed by the 6th respondent, seeks to quash Ext.P11 and to compel the 1st respondent to direct the Manager to promote the petitioner as Headmaster in the School.

2. The petitioner states that she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the 4th respondent-School from 09.06.1997. The appointment was approved as per Ext.P1. The petitioner has passed all the Departmental Tests.

3. Sri. Askar K., Headmaster, retired from service on 30.04.2021 giving rise to a vacancy of Headmaster from

01.05.2021. The petitioner is the seniormost Teacher having W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 4 : more than 24 years of service. As the petitioner has passed all Departmental Tests, she is eligible to be appointed as Headmaster.

4. The Manager, however, appointed the 5th respondent as Headmaster. The petitioner submitted an appeal before the Assistant Educational Officer stating that she is the seniormost Teacher entitled to be promoted as HM and that the Manager has not followed the procedure laid down by the Full Bench of this Court while filling up the post of Headmaster. The AEO, as per Ext.P7 order dated 22.10.2022, rejected approval to the appointment of the 5th respondent as Headmaster, holding that the Manager has not followed the dictum laid down by this Court in Kurian Lizy v. State of Kerala [2006 (4) KLT 264] and relevant Government Orders. The Manager preferred an appeal before the District Educational Officer. The DEO also rejected the appeal as per Ext.P8 order dated 15.11.2022.

5. The Manager preferred a further appeal before the Additional Director of General Education. The Additional W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 5 : Director found that the School has minority status and therefore the Manager can appoint a Teacher of the minority community as Headmaster. The petitioner belongs to General Category and therefore, at the instance of the petitioner, the discretion exercised by the Manager cannot be interfered with. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P11 order dated 01.04.2024 of the Additional Director.

6. The counsel for the petitioner urged that a Full Bench of this Court in Kurian Lizy (supra) has held that in the matter of appointment of Headmaster/Principal of a School or College, the selection procedure should be fair, reasonable and transparent. The eligible members of the minority community may not have a feeling that they have been superseded without any valid grounds. All minority educational institutions proposing to select best person to the post of Headmaster/Principal ignoring seniority in the feeder category, should frame and publish Regulations or Bye-laws containing a transparent procedure governing such selection. The law laid W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 6 : down by the Full Bench in Kurian Lizy (supra) is ignored by the 6th respondent. The 1st respondent is a statutory authority and the 1st respondent is bound to give cogent reasons for rejecting the findings of the AEO and the DEO. In the facts of the case, Ext.P11 is liable to be set aside and the 1st respondent is compellable to direct the Manager to promote the petitioner, contended the counsel for the petitioner.

7. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 5th respondent stated that the petitioner heavily relies on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Kurian Lizy (supra). In view of Ext.R5(f) judgment of the Apex Court, the principle of fair procedure stipulated by the Full Bench has become otiose. Therefore, Ext.P8 order issued by the Deputy Director is not liable to be interfered with.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 7 :

9. The argument of the petitioner in short is that a Full Bench of this Court in Kurian Lizy (supra) has held that in the matter of appointment of Headmaster/Principal in minority educational institutions, the selection procedure should be fair, reasonable and transparent and all minority Educational Isnstitutions intending to appoint Headmaster/Principal ignoring seniority of Teachers, should frame and publish Regulations or Bye-laws, containing a transparent procedure governing such selection. The 6th respondent has not followed the Full Bench judgment. Therefore, selection and appointment of the 5th respondent is illegal.

10. In the judgment in Kurian Lizy (supra), the Full Bench of this Court held as follows: We notice that in many cases senior teachers belonging to the minority community, which runs the institution are superseded without assigning any reason. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India is an armour to protect the minority against the legislative and executive actions of the State, which is normally controlled by the majority. The said armour cannot be used as a weapon against other members of the same minority community. The protection under Article 30(1) is to the minority community and for the minority community. The Manager may supersede W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 8 : the members of other communities and also members of the minority community, who are found unsuitable for promotion to the post of Headmaster. But there may be teachers, who are, in every respect, qualified and suitable to head a minority educational institution. The management may select the best among them. The selection procedure should be fair, reasonable and transparent. The eligible members of the minority community may not have a feeling that they have been superseded without any valid grounds. So, all minority educational institutions, which propose to select the best person to the post of Headmaster/Principal of a School or College, as the case may be, ignoring seniority in the feeder category or ignoring the available teachers, should frame and publish regulations or bye-laws, containing a transparent procedure, governing such selection. The publication can be made in the Notice Board of the educational institution concerned and a copy of it should be available in school/college library for reference. When superseding a senior qualified member of the minority community the reasons thereof should be clear from the records. A reading of the judgment of the Full Bench would indicate that the procedure is prescribed in order to protect senior Teachers belonging to the minority community, in the matter of selection and appointment of Headmaster/Principal in minority educational institutions. The petitioner does not belong to the minority community. Therefore, the petitioner cannot impugn the selection on the basis of non-adherence to the directions W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 9 : given by the Full Bench.

11. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the judgment in Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew and others [(2017) 15 SCC 595] that once management of a minority educational institution makes a conscious choice of a qualified person from the minority community to lead the institution, as the Headmaster or Principal, court cannot go into the merits of the choice or the rationality or propriety of the process of choice, as the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India is absolute. In view of the law laid down by this Court and by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I do not find any illegality in Ext.P11 order passed by the Additional Director (Academic) of General Education. The writ petition fails and it is hence dismissed. aks/09.04.2025 Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 10 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15427/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 09.06.1997. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DATED 22.11.2018. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DATED 22.11.2018. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DATED 22.11.2018. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE MANAGER DATED 03.08.2021. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 10.06.2021. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER BEARING NO. B/10985/2021(1) DATED 22.01.2022. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER BEARING NO. B5/197541/2022 DATED 15.11.2022. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11/2023 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION DATED 19.12.2023. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. W.P.(C) No.15427/2024 : 11 : G4/238938/2022 DATED 01.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION. RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS Exhibit R-5 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER BY PROMOTION DATED 01.05.2021 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit R-5 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT DATED 01.05.2021 Exhibit R-5 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF LIST OF THE SCHOOL AS ON 01.01.2021 Exhibit R-5 (d) Exhibit R-5 (e) Exhibit R-5 (f) Exhibit R-5 (g) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F. NO. 761 OF 2016 DATED 25.01.2017 ALONG WITH CERTIFICATE DATED 25TH JANUARY 2017 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2007 KHC 5043=2007 (1) KLT 22 (SECRETARY, MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC COLLEGE V. T. JOSE AND OTHERS DECIDED ON 27.11.2006) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2017 (4) KHC 83=2017 (3) KLT 713 (MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY V. JAMES MATHEW AND OTHERS DECIDED ON 11.07.2017) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 878/2018 DATED 28.09.2022 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KUTHUPARAMBA