High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-02-02Writ petitions disposed; Ext.P5(a)/Ext.P6 set a...

Dileep R. (Principal-In-Charge, HSST Mathematics) v State of Kerala and Others; Jayakumar K v State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).Nos.17796/2020; WP(C).Nos.24186/2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2021-02-02
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petitions are allowed. Ext.P5(a) in WP(C)24186/2020 (and Ext.P6 in WP(C)17796/2020) are set aside. The Manager of Netaji HSS, Pramadom is directed to appoint Sri K. Jayakumar as Principal within two weeks of receipt of this judgment and to send the proposal to the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education, Alappuzha, for approval. The RDD must consider the proposal in terms of law without further delay and not later than two months from the date the proposal reaches him. If any modification to Jayaraj (supra) arises through any legal process, Dileep will be free to challenge afresh; the petitions are disposed in terms of these directions.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed; Ext.P5(a)/Ext.P6 set aside; Jayakumar to be appointed Principal with specified timelines and forwarded for approval; RDD to act within two months; further challenges to the Jayaraj declarations allowed if necessary.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dileep R.
K. Jayakumar

Respondents

State of Kerala
Director of General Education, Higher Secondary Wing
Regional Deputy Director, Higher Secondary Education, Chengannur
Manager, Netaji Higher Secondary School, Pramadom
K. Jayakumar, Headmaster, Netaji Higher Secondary School, Pramadom

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Dr. George Abraham
• Sri.V.A. Muhammed
• Sri.M.Sajjad

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.V.A. Muhammed
• Sri.M.Sajjad
• Sri.P.M.Manoj
• Dr. George Abraham

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two writ petitions concerning the same school, Netaji Higher Secondary School, Pramadom, were heard together because of the similar factual backdrop: Dileep R., the senior-most Higher Secondary School teacher, served as Principal-in-Charge while K. Jayakumar, the Headmaster of the School’s High School division, claimed the post of Principal. The Government rejected Jayakumar’s bid for a by-transfer appointment, citing lack of workload in the Higher Secondary section, yet issued Ext.P5(a)/Ext.P6 directing him to be the Principal-in-Charge despite finding him ineligible for permanent appointment. Dileep contends Ext.P6 is improper as it was issued without hearing him and because Jayakumar should not be placed ahead of an unresolved claim by the Senior teacher; he seeks to continue as Principal-in-Charge. Jayakumar argues that the court’s decision in Jayaraj v. State of Kerala (2016) 2 KLT 200 mandates relief if he is found entitled, and that Ext.P6 violates prior declarations. The Court holds that Jayaraj’s ratio applies and that Ext.P5(a)/Ext.P6 must be set aside, directing the Manager to appoint Jayakumar as Principal within two weeks and to forward the proposal to the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education for approval, who must decide within two months. The judgment notes that status-quo observations in a related Division Bench WA are not binding ad rem. The petitions are disposed in terms of these directions.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Jayaraj v. State of Kerala (2016) 2 KLT 200 – ratio applied
Status quo doctrine (as discussed in related proceedings)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners challenge the government’s Ext.P6 direction converting Jayakumar’s claim into a Principal-in-Charge appointment while Jayakumar’s own eligibility remains in question. Dileep argues Ext.P6 was issued without hearing him and that Jayakumar’s appointment would circumvent ongoing proceedings; he seeks setting aside Ext.P6 and continuation of his own role as Principal-in-Charge. Jayakumar contends that the law declared in Jayaraj v. State of Kerala entitles him to appointment if eligible, and seeks implementation of that declaration as relief.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and education authorities defend the orders, arguing that Jayakumar’s workload issue and other considerations justified withholding a permanent appointment; Ext.P6 as a temporary arrangement was proper and Jayaraj’s ratio would apply only if Jayakumar is adjudged eligible. The status-quo order in WA 2373/2019 is not an ad rem stay and has no binding effect on these petitions.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jayaraj v. State of Kerala	2016(2) KLT 200	Positive	Court relied on the ratio in Jayaraj to grant relief to Jayakumar as declared by Jayaraj.
WA 2373/2019	WA No.2373/2019	Mentioned Only	Status-quo order referenced; no explicit observation that Jayaraj is stayed or that it should not be followed.
WPC 19948/2013	WPC 19948/2013	Mentioned Only	Exhibit cited; not central to the decision.
WPC 17095/2019	WPC 17095/2019	Mentioned Only	Exhibit cited; not central to the decision.
WPC 24463/2019	WPC 24463/2019	Mentioned Only	Exhibit cited; not central to the decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Dileep R. (Principal-In-Charge, HSST Mathematics) v State of Kerala and Others; Jayakumar K v State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942** ## **WP(C).No.17796 OF 2020(Y)** ## **PETITIONER:** **DILEEP R, PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE, HSST (MATHEMATICS), NETAJI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PRAMADOM, MALLASSERY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.** ## **BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, G.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, HIGHER SECONDARY WING, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **3 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, CHENGANNUR-689 121.** - **4 MANAGER, NETAJI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PRAMADOM, MALLASSERY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 646.** - **5 K. JAYAKUMAR, HEADMASTER, NETAJI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PRAMADOM, MALLASSERY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 646.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD SRI.P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).24186/2020(W), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020** **-2-** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942** **WP(C).No.24186 OF 2020(W)** ## **PETITIONER:** **JAYAKUMAR K, AGED 54 YEARS, SON OF O.N. KRISHNA KURUP, PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE, NETAJI HSS, PRAMADOM, P.O. MALLASSERY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 646.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, ANNEX II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, HIGHER SECONDARY WING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 121.** - **4 THE MANAGER, NETAJI HSS, PRAMADOM, P.O. MALLASSERY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 646. BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.MANOJ, SR.GP DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).17796/2020(Y), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020** **-3-** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **[ WP(C)No.17796/2020, WP(C)No.24186/2020 ] Dated this the 2nd day of February 2021** These two writ petitions have been heard together on account of the analogous nature of the factual circumstances presented and since the reliefs to be granted in one, will certainly affect the reliefs to be granted in the other. 2. W.P.(C)No.24186 of 2020 has been filed by Sri.K.Jayakumar, who is stated to be the Headmaster of “Netaji Higher Secondary School”, Pramadom, Pathanamthitta, and he asserts that he is fully entitled to be appointed as the Principal of the said School. According to him, even though he had staked his claim before the competent educational Authorities, Government has, through ## **WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020** **-4-** Ext.P5(a) order dated 18.06.2020, declined the request for 'by-transfer appointment' as the Principal of the Higher Secondary School, solely for the reason that there is no workload in the Higher Secondary Section for accommodating him. Sri.K.Jayakumar says that this finding of the Government is contrary to the declaration of law by this Court in _**Jayaraj v. State of Kerala**_ **[2016(2) KLT 200]** and prays that this order be set aside and the Educational Authorities be directed to approve him as the Principal of the Higher Secondary School. 3. While so, it appears that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.17796 of 2020, Sri.R.Dileep - who is the senior most Higher Secondary School Teacher in the School - was appointed as its Principal-inCharge, pending consideration of ## **WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Sri.K.Jayakumar's claim, but the Government finally issued Ext.P6 order (which is the same as Ext.P5(a) in W.P.(C)No.24186 of 2020), ordering Sri.K.Jayakumar to be appointed as the Principal-in- Charge, though he has been found not eligible to be appointed as the Principal. Sri.R.Dileep contends that Ext.P6 is improper, since it has been issued without hearing him and since Sri.Jayakumar - being already found not eligible to be appointed as the Principal - could not have been then directed to be made the Principal–inCharge. Sri.R.Dileep, therefore, prays that Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.17796 of 2020 be set aside and he be allowed to continue as the Principal–in-Charge. **==> picture [319 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** submissions of the parties, as argued by their learned counsel Sri.M.Sajjad and ## **WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020** **-6-** Dr.George Abraham, appearing for Sri.K.Jayakumar and Sri.R.Dileep respectively, as also that of the learned Senior Government Pleader – Sri.P.M.Manoj. 5. The undisputed fact in this case is that Sri.K.Jayakuamar is the Headmaster of the High School division of the School; while Sri.R.Dileep is the senior most Higher Secondary School Teacher in the same School. Both of them stake claim to the post of Principal. 6. The claim of Sri.K.Jayakumar has been rejected by the Government, solely because his accommodation in the Higher Secondary level is not possible for want of sufficient workload. Sri.R.Dieep, on the other hand, had been appointed as the Principal-in-Charge, since the claim of Sri.K.Jayakumar had been found untenable. 7. However, through the impugned ## **WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020** **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** order in these two cases, even though the Government has found that Sri.K.Jayakumar is not eligible to be appointed as the Principal of the School on account of the aforementioned reason, it has still directed that he be made its Principal–inCharge. 8. The singular issue pertinent in this case is whether Sri.K.Jayakumar is entitled to be the Principal of the School and whether the ratio in _**Jayaraj(supra)**_ would apply to the facts presented, so as to enable him to be appointed so. If Sri.K.Jayakumar is so found eligible, then naturally the claim of Sri.R.Dileep, to continue as the Principal-in-charge, would have no legs to stand on. 9. _Ex facie_ and admittedly, the facts of this case certainly make the declarations in **Jayaraj** ( _supra_ ) apply in **WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020** **-8-** full force; but it is argued by Dr.George Abraham, learned counsel appearing for Sri.R.Dileep, that an appeal has been preferred against another judgment in W.P. (C)No.7835/2016, which had been delivered following **Jayaraj** ( _supra_ ), and that the same is pending consideration before a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2373/2019. Dr.George Abraham asserts that, as is evident from Ext.P8 produced in W.P.(C)No.17796/2020, the learned Division Bench has ordered that the status quo be maintained as far as that case is concerned. 10. Even though the afore submissions of Dr.George Abraham is accurate, since Ext.P8 order certainly directs the parties involved in the said case to maintain _status quo,_ there are, concededly no observations therein that **Jayaraj** ( _supra_ ) **WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020** **-9-** is either stayed or that it should not be followed. 11. Obviously, therefore, Ext.P8 order of _status quo_ can be only construed as having been ordered by the learned Division Bench noticing particular factual circumstances involved in that case and the said order cannot apply _ad rem._ I am therefore, of the firm view that Sri.K.Jayakumar – the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.24186 of 2020, is certainly entitled to the benefits as declared by this Court in **Jayaraj** ( _supra_ ); and am, resultantly, of the opinion that the Government must issue appropriate orders in terms of the declarations therein. In the afore circumstances, I set aside Ext.P5(a) in W.P.(C)No.24186/2020 (which is the same as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.17796/2020) and direct the Manager of “Netaji Higher ## **WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020** **-10-** Secondary School” to appoint Sri.K.Jayakumar - petitioner in W.P. (C)No.24186/2020 as its Principal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with a resultant direction to him to forward the same to the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education, Alappuzha, for approval; which shall then be considered by the said Authority in terms of law without any further delay thereafter, but not later than two months from the date on which the said proposal reaches him. I make it clear that since I have granted the afore benefit to Sri.K.Jayakumar based on **Jayaraj** ( _supra_ ), if any modification is made to said judgment through a process known to law, then certainly, Sri.R.Dileep will be at liberty to agitate his claim afresh in **WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020** **-11-** terms of the resultant declarations, if any, in future. These writ petitions are thus ordered. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** akv/rp **WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020** **-12-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17796/2020** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATED 25/05/2018.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATED 23/06/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELINQUISHMENT LETTER APPROVED BY THE MANAGER DATED 21/12/2017.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATED 09/08/2019.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE WPC NO.24463/2019 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(RT) NO.2048/2020/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 18/06/2020.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20TH AUGUST 2020.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 28/11/2019 IN WA NO.2373/2019.** - **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 19948/2013 DATED 25.2.2016** **EXHIBIT R5 B TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO5014/2019/G.EDN DATED 21.11.2019** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE **WP(C).Nos.17796 & 24186 OF 2020** **-13-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24186/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RDD HSE, CHENGANNUR DATED 04.06.2019.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.17095/2019 DATED 24.06.2019.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE NO.5533/C7/2019/RDD/CNGR DATED 09.08.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 20.08.2019.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.24463/2019 DATED 05.09.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.2048/2020/G.EDN DATED 18.06.2020.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2016(2) KLT 200 DATED 25.02.2016.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.5014/2019/G.EDN DATED 21.11.2019. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.1260/2019/G.EDN DATED 01.04.2019.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE