WP(C) No. 9111 of 2021

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 9111 OF 2021 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` THE MANAGER MAI HIGH SCHOOL AND MAI LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL MURUKADY,VISWANATHAPURAM.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685535. ``` ``` BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT ANNEXE-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.`** - **`2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION, JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.`** - **`3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, IDUKKI AT THODUPUZHA-685584.`** - **`4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KATTAPPANA,IDUKKI DISTRICT-685508.`** - **`5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PEERUMEDU,IDUKKI DISTRICT-685531.`** - **`6 SRI.SAJU.P, HEAD MASTER,(NOT APPROVED),MAI LP SCHOOL, MURUKADY,VISWANATHAPURAM.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685535.`** ``` BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SR.GP JOBY JOSEPH`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 27.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 9111 OF 2021 ``` ``` 2 ``` **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ======================== W.P.(C) No. 9111 of 2021 ======================== Dated this the 27[th] day of May, 2022** ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioner is the Manager of two aided schools coming under the administrative jurisdiction of the 4[th] respondent. When a vacancy arose in the post of Headmaster in one of the schools i.e., MAI LP School on 01.04.2019, the seniormost teacher, qualified for the said post, tendered her relinquishment which was approved by the Jurisdictional Educational Officer. Thereafter, petitioner promoted the 6[th] respondent as a Headmaster and sought for approval. By order dated 16.11.2019, the 5[th] respondent rejected the said proposal against which petitioner preferred an appeal before the 4[th] respondent. By Ext.P6 order dated 14.05.2020, the appeal was allowed and directions were issued to approve the appointment of the 6[th] respondent, if it was otherwise in accordance with law. 2. Even after Ext.P6 was issued, the 5[th] ``` WP(C) NO. 9111 OF 2021 ``` ``` 3 ``` respondent refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner and sought for clarifications from the 4[th] respondent. Though the query itself was curious, still by Ext.P8 communication dated 01.02.2021, the 4[th] respondent informed that, the order issued by him was in accordance with law and did not require any review. The 4[th] respondent also directed the AEO to initiate further steps. 3. The grievance of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is that, despite the order of the appellate authority and even after a clarification the 5[th] respondent is adamantly refusing to issue orders of approval and instead continue to indulge in seeking further clarifications from the appellate authority. 4. Smt. P.A. Jenziya, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, a subordinate authority cannot refuse to abide by the orders of the superior authority or even question the decision of an appellate authority. It was further argued that, the entire principles of administration of justice will be prejudiced, if such attempts on the part of ``` WP(C) NO. 9111 OF 2021 ``` ``` 4 ``` the subordinate authorities are accepted or even permitted. 5. Sri. Joby Joseph, the learned Government Pleader on the other hand contended that, the 5[th] respondent has not questioned the appellate authority, but had only sought for clarifications. According to him, since as per the government circular dated 03.06.2017, teachers appointed as UPSA or claimants with B.Ed qualifications before 08.06.2000 were not qualified to be appointed as Headmaster in lower primary schools and that the number of teaching posts sanctioned including the Headmaster, must be equal to the number of class divisions available. It was further pleaded that, appointment of the 6[th] respondent was to the post of Headmaster and hence he is liable to take classes for standards upto IV, but since the 6[th] respondent is a B.Ed holder he is not qualified to the said post. The 5[th] respondent further pleaded that, the clarifications sought for were in tune with the educational rules and that, there was no intention to cause any disrespect to the appellate authority. ``` WP(C) NO. 9111 OF 2021 ``` ``` 5 ``` 6. On a consideration of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. The 4[th] respondent had, as the appellate authority clearly mentioned in Ext.P6 that, the appeal filed by the petitioner is allowed, and that the promotion shall be approved, if it is otherwise in accordance with law. Once such an order is issued by the appellate authority, the 5[th] respondent being a subordinate authority, ought to have issued consequential orders approving the appointment, instead of seeking further clarifications on the order. 7. Despite the request of clarifications being opposed to the principles of administration of justice, still, it is seen from Ext.P8 that, the appellate authority reiterated the findings and conclusions and directed the 5[th] respondent to initiate appropriate steps to abide by the earlier order. The clarification, again sought for by the 5[th] respondent from the Director General of Education, as per Ext.R5(b), is in fact, an attempt to make mockery of the ``` WP(C) NO. 9111 OF 2021 ``` ``` 6 ``` principles of rule of law. Its trite law that a subordinate quasi judicial authority is not entitled to question the correctness or otherwise of an order issued by the appellate authority. On the other hand, the order of the appellate authority is bound to be followed without raising any question as held in **Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. West Coast Petroleum Agency and Others (2012 (1) KLT 704)** . Apart from the above, in the decision in **Bhopal Sugar Industries v. Income Tax Officer (AIR 1961 SC 182)** it was observed that when a subordinate authority in the hierarchy does not adhere to or abide by the decision of a superior authority, its action cannot be justified. Such refusal was held to be in effect a denial of justice and destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice. 8. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that, the 5[th] respondent is bound to implement the order appellate authority and the appeal filed by him before the DGE is without authority of law and cannot be sustained. Therefore, the writ petitioner is entitled to ``` WP(C) NO. 9111 OF 2021 ``` ``` 7 ``` succeed in this writ petition. 9. Consequently, there will be a direction to the 5[th] respondent to approve the appointment of the 6[th] respondent covered by Ext.P3. The needful shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE** LU ``` WP(C) NO. 9111 OF 2021 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9111/2021`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR 2019-20 VIDE NO.L.DIS/C/2106/2019 DATED 15.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE AEO, PEERUMEDU. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/1583/19/K.DIS DATED 06.11.2019 OF THE AEO,PEERUMEDU ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER OF THE SRI.SAJU.P DATED 01.04.2019 EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/1133/19/K.DIS DATED 16.11.2019 OF THE AEO,PEERAMEDU ``` ``` EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEO, KATTAPPANA DATED 27.11.2019 ``` - **`EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/8858/2019 DATED 14.05.2020 OF THE DEO, KATTAPPANA`** - **`EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C/4534/2020 DATED 07.10.2020 OF THE AEO,PEERUMEDU ADDRESSING THE PETITIONER`** - **`EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B1/2372/L.DIS DATED 01.02.2021 OF THE DEO, KATTAPPANA ADDRESSING THE AEO,PEERUMEDU`** ``` EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION VIDE LETTER NO.25/2019-20 DATED 03.03.2021 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSING THE AEO,PEERUMEDU. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2012 KHC 134 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 1991 KHC 120 ``` ``` RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R5(A)TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.167/2019/G.EDN. DATED 17/01/2019. EXHIBIT R5(B)TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.981/20 DATED 03/04/2021. ``` ## **`// True Copy // PA To Judge`**