High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-02-23Writ petition allowed in part; Exts P7 and P8 q...

Mathew C.R. v State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 34265 of 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2023-02-23
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed. Exts P7 and P8 quashed. Direct the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment by transfer of the petitioner as Principal of St. Antony’s Higher Secondary School with effect from 14.12.2011, expeditiously and within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Consequential benefits to be disbursed within two months from the date of approval. The matter is disposed with the petitioner receiving relief consistent with the court’s interpretation of statutory rules, supported by Thomas K.L. and subsequent judgments.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed in part; Exts P7 and P8 quashed; directions issued to approve the appointment and disburse benefits within specified time frames.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mathew C.R.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Director of Higher Secondary Education, Santhi Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram
Regional Deputy Director of Education, Regional Office, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K.T. Shyamkumar
• Sri Harish R. Menon

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

Mathew C.R., a former teacher at St. Antony’s Higher Secondary School, challenged the denial of retroactive appointment as Principal and related pay benefits. He joined service in 1990, advanced to High School Assistant in 1998, became Headmaster in 2010, and was transferred as Principal of St. Antony’s Higher Secondary School on 14.12.2011. His appointment as Principal was not approved and he continued drawing the pay of a High School Assistant, while juniors promoted as Headmasters earned higher salaries. He sought notional fixation of pay under Ext P6, seniority benefits as on 1.6.2013 and Headmaster scale as on 1.6.2014 with increments that would have accrued had he remained Headmaster, and urgent approval of the transfer-based promotion. After amendment, he challenged Exts P7 and P8 in light of Thomas K.L. v. State of Kerala. The Government argued Exts P7 and P8 were proper and that pay scales and approvals followed statutory rules. The court relied on Thomas K.L. and later decisions (including a 2023 judgment in W.P.(C.) No. 20757/2022) to hold that financial liability cannot govern interpretation of statutory rules and notifications conferring benefits. The court quashed Exts P7 and P8, directed the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment w.e.f. 14.12.2011 within two months, and ordered payment of consequential benefits within two more months, effectively allowing the petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Chapter XXXII, Rule 1(f), Kerala Education Rules (KER)Chapter XXXII, Rule 4, Kerala Education Rules (KER)Rule 1(f) of Chap. XXXII KERG.O. (MS) No. 338/2003/G. Edn.G.O. (MS) No. 43/2005/G.Edn.Go(P) No. 29/2014 (197)/FINArticle 226, Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Financial liability to the State is not a governing consideration in interpreting statutory rules/notifications.
The State cannot contend financial exigencies when its rules/notifications confer a benefit on a particular category of teachers.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that Ext P6 entitles him to notional pay fixation and the benefit of Senior Grade of High School Assistant as on 1.6.2013, and the Headmaster scale as on 1.6.2014 on completion of 16 years as HSA, with applicable increments had he remained Headmaster. He sought quashing of Exts P7 and P8 and an order directing grant of approval for his promotion to Principal of the St. Antony’s Higher Secondary School (transfer-based) from 14.12.2011, along with expeditious disbursal of consequential benefits. He relied on Thomas K.L. v. State of Kerala (2013 KHC 3670) to contend that financial liability cannot govern interpretation of rules conferring benefits. He later limited relief to quashing Exts P7 and P8 and directing approval, supported by a 2022–2023 line of judgments following Thomas K.L."

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintained that Exts. P7 and P8 were issued in accordance with statutory rules governing appointment and promotion of principals; a principal is the academic and administrative head and may be appointed by transfer to a post that requires appropriate qualifications; financial liability is a valid concern and cannot be ignored; the state’s policies and government orders (including GO Nos. 338/2003, 43/2005 and GO(P) 29/2014) and Chapter XXXII rules govern the eligibility and duties of a Principal, including teaching duties; the interpretation of rules should not be dictated by financial considerations or retroactive pay matters; Exts P7 and P8 are consistent with existing rules and the State cannot be compelled to incur unbudgeted liabilities by judicial fiat; the court should not override statutory provisions or established administrative practice.”},

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Thomas K.L. v. State of Kerala and others	2013 KHC 3670	Positive	The court applies the principle from Thomas K.L. that financial liability is not the primary criterion for interpreting statutory rules/notifications conferring benefits.
W.P.(C.) No. 20757/2022	W.P.(C.) No. 20757/2022	Positive	Cited as a related instance following Thomas K.L. to reinforce the same policy principle in support of relief.

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 Mathew C.R. 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.

WP(C) NO. 34265 OF 2015 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 34265 OF 2015** ## **PETITIONER/S:** MATHEW C.R. AGED 50 YEARS S/O.RAPPAI C.V., PRINCIPAL, ST.ANTONY'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PUTHENPEEDIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 642. BY ADVS. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.HARISH R. MENON ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2 DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 3 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI.K.M.FAISAL, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 34265 OF 2015 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 34265 of 2015** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of February, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : “i) Declare that the petitioner who continues to draw the scale of pay applicable to High School Assistants is entitled to the benefit of notional fixation of pay as provided in Ext P6 Government order. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant the petitioner the benefit of Senior Grade of High School Assistant as on 1.6.2013 on completion of 15 years of service and the scale of pay of Headmaster of High School as on 1.6.2014 on his completion of 16 years of service as High School Assistant and also annual increments which he would have obtained had he continued as Headmaster of the school as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time limit to be prescribed by this Hon’ble Court. (ii)(a) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exts P7 and P8 orders and quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, WP(C) NO. 34265 OF 2015 3 order or direction. (ii)(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to approve the promotion of the petitioner as Principal of the St.Antony’s Higher Secondary School, Puthenpeedika, Thrissur District with effect from 14.12.2011 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time limit to be prescribed by this Hon’ble Court. and (iii) grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.” [SIC] 2. The petitioner joined service as Lower Primary School Teacher on 06.06.1990. He was later promoted as High School Assistant on 02.06.1998 and as Headmaster on 03.06.2010. While working as Headmaster of the said school, the petitioner was appointed by transfer as Principal of St.Antony's Higher Secondary School, Puthenpeedika on 14.12.2011. His appointment as Principal is not yet approved and he is still drawing the scale of pay of High School Assistant, is the grievance of the petitioner. The juniors of the petitioner and those who have been promoted as Headmasters are drawing more pay than the petitioner is the grievance. WP(C) NO. 34265 OF 2015 4 After filing the writ petition, the petitioner amended the writ petition challenging Exts.P7 and P8 order, in the light of the judgment of this Court in **Thomas K.L.** v. **State of Kerala and others** [2013 KHC 3670]. Now, the petitioner limits prayer No.ii(a) and ii(b). The petitioner challenge Exts.P7 and P8. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The counsel for the petitioner takes me through Exts.P7 and P8 and also the judgment in **Thomas K.L.'s** case (supra) which is followed by this Court in the judgment dated 10.01.2023 in W.P.(C.) No. 20757/2022. The contention is that in the light of the above decisions, Exts.P7 and P8 will not stand. I think there is some force in this argument. 5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Government Pleader. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of **Thomas K.L.'s** case (supra). 5. “The primary contention of the appellant is that the definition of "Principal" contained in Rule 1(f) of Chap.32 KER makes it abundantly clear that the Principal acts as the academic and administrative head of the Higher Secondary School. On the strength of the above definition categorizing the WP(C) NO. 34265 OF 2015 5 Principal as the academic head of the school and the further stipulation in G.O. (MS). No. 43/2005/G.Edn. Dated 11.02.2005 and G.O.(M.S.) No. 338/2003/G. Edn. Dated 16.12.2003 that a Principal is to carry on teaching duties; clearly demonstrates that a person who is not qualified as a Higher Secondary School Teacher cannot be appointed to the post of Principal of a Higher Secondary School, is the contention. The appellant also has an alternate contention with reference to Exhibit P6 produced in W.P.(C). No. 24638 of 2010, from which W. A. No. 59 of 2013 arises, which contemplates the creation of a supernumerary post of Higher Secondary School Teacher to ensure that the junior-most Higher Secondary School Teacher is not thrown out due to shortage of teaching periods; consequent on a Headmaster turned Principal taking charge and handles 16 hours teaching periods. The submission of the appellant is that while a Headmaster of a High School is appointed as Principal, it postulates creation of a supernumerary post, which burdens the State with additional financial liability while a Higher Secondary School Assistant occupying the seat of Principal would continue his teaching duties, thus requiring no additional financial liability to the State. 6. At the outset, we have to notice that financial liability to the State is not a reigning consideration of this Court in interpreting statutory rules and notifications. The State, in its wisdom, has thought it fit that the Headmasters of High Schools also should be given a limited opportunity to occupy the seat of a Principal of a Higher Secondary School and has deemed it fit to issue notifications protecting any displacement of teachers in the Higher Secondary Schools by virtue of such WP(C) NO. 34265 OF 2015 6 benefit given to the Headmasters of High School section. We are not financial watchdogs of the State and cannot at all, under Article 226 of the Constitution, meddle with the wisdom of the State and import our own concepts of financial viability. The State also cannot contend financial exigencies, when its own rules and notifications intend to confer a benefit on a particular category of teachers.” 6. Based on the above dictum, another learned Single Judge of this Court delivered a judgment in W.P.(C.) No. 20757/2022. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder : “8. In the instant case, I find that the learned Government Pleader has no response to the contention of the petitioner that as per Chapter XXXII Rule 4, if the qualification of Higher Secondary School teacher were to be insisted for filling up of the post of Principal of Higher Secondary School, then the two methods of appointment prescribed at the mandate of the ratio of 2:1 would be frustrated. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to follow the law laid down in Thomas (supra) as the principles laid down therein squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. Furthermore, it has been held by this Court that financial liability to the State is not a reigning consideration while interpreting statutory rules and notifications. It has also been held that the State cannot rely on financial exigencies when its own rules and notifications intend to confer a benefit on a particular category of teachers.” WP(C) NO. 34265 OF 2015 7 7. In the light of the above dictum laid down by this Court, I think the petitioner is entitled the relief. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner : - 1) Exts.P7 and P8 are quashed. - 2) There will be a direction to the 3[rd] respondent to approve the appointment by transfer of the petitioner as Principal of St.Antony's Higher Secondary School, Puthenpeedika, Thrissur w.e.f. 14.12.2011 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - 3) Consequential benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioner within another two months from the date on which the approval order is passed. ## **Sd/-** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS WP(C) NO. 34265 OF 2015 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34265/2015** PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.06.1990 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATE MANAGER. P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.06.1998 PROMOTING THE PETITIONER AS HSA. P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2010 OF THE CORPORATE MANAGER. P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATE MANAGER. P5. TREU COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY OF THE PETITIONER. P6. TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO:29/2014(197)/FIN DATED 16.07.2014. P7. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPROVAL OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATE OF APPOINTMENT. P8. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.