Decided on July 16,2003



- (1.) THE point that arises for decision in this case is whether the service rendered by a Primary School Teacher in an Aided School managed by a different Educational Agency can be counted in his present school for the purpose of reckoning the period of service under Rule 45 Chap.14 K.E.R. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of the ease are the following:-
(2.) THE Petitioner joined Bavode East U.P. School, Bavode, Kannur District on 10.08.1977 on inter management transfer from Vadakkumpad Aided L.P. School, Mundalloor. He joined the school at Mundalloor on 02.06.1975 and has continuous approved service in that school upto 09.08.1977. On the strength of the order of the competent authority, the Petitioner joined the present school on 10.08.1977. A vacancy arose in the post of Headmaster on 01.06.1999. The Petitioner and the 6th Respondent were the rival claimants. It is not in dispute that both of them are qualified to be promoted as Headmaster. The Petitioner's qualifications are SSLC and TTC, whereas that of the 6th Respondent are Graduation and B.Ed. The Petitioner has a service of 21 years 9 months and 22 days as on 01.06.1999. The 6th Respondent has 11 years 3 months and 24 days service. If the service in the present school alone is reckoned, the 6th Respondent is liable to be preferred for appointment as Headmaster on the basis of the preference available to Graduates under Rule 45 Chap.14 KER. If the Petitioner's service of 2 years, 2 months and 7 days rendered by him in Vadakkumpad Aided L.P. School, Mundalloor is also reckoned, the Petitioner is entitled too be appointed in preference to the 6th Respondent, who joined the school on 08.02.1988.
(3.) THE Manager appointed the 6th Respondent as Headmaster of the School with effect from 01-06-1999. The Petitioner filed Exhibit P1 objection before the A.E.O., against the said appointment. He also prayed that the Manager may be directed to appoint him as the Headmaster. The A.E.O. as per Exhibit P2 order, rejected the Petitioner's representation and ordered approval of the appointment of the 6th Respondent. The Petitioner preferred Exhibit P3 appeal before the D.E.O., Kannur. The appeal was dismissed by Exhibit P4 order dated 17-02.2000. His further revision Exhibit P5 before the Government was also dismissed by Exhibit P6 order dated 18.10.2000. In this Original petition, the Petitioner challenges Exhibits P2, P4 and P6 orders.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.