H. Nazeena vs State Of Kerala

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The appellant is the manager of an aided school. The appellant was unsuccessful before the learned Single Judge in a challenge against orders rejecting approval of appointment of Surya Prabha S HST (Malayalam) in the school. The reason for rejection was that the appellant is obliged to appoint a protected teacher under Chapter XXI Rule 7 of the Kerala Education Rules (for short “Rules”).

The appellant raised two fold contentions. One is in regard to the minority status of the school and the other is based on the fact that there were no protected teachers in the district concerned or nearby districts and also on the ground that the appellant had already appointed one protected teacher. The learned Single Judge turned down the challenge finding that minority status of the school is of no avail to shirk statutory obligation of the manager to appoint a protected teacher and further held that as per the record, protected teachers are available and the manager could not have acted to appoint a teacher from open category without permission from the officer concerned.

It is to be noted that the vacancy arose consequent upon the retirement of smt.Kalavathy D, who was a protected teacher. The law is clear in this regard under Chapter XXI Rule 7(6) of the Rules, which reads as follows:

“when a vacancy arises due to the relief of a protected teacher appointed under Sub Rules (1) to (4), that vacancy shall be filled up only by appointing another protected teacher from the Teacher's Bank.”

In Chapter XXI Rule 7(6) of the Rules, when a vacancy arises due to the relief of a protected teacher appointed under Sub Rules (1) to (4), that vacancy shall be filled up only by appointing another protected teacher from the Teacher's Bank. There is no dispute as to the fact that Smt.Kalavathy D was a protected teacher and in that vacancy the manager appointed Smt. Surya Prabha S. In that view of the matter, the appellant can only fill the post by appointing another protected teacher. Further, minority status of the educational institution is not a ground to obviate from statutory obligations. Thus, statutory provisions are equally binding on minority and non-minority institutions. Thus, the appeal fails and accordingly, dismissed.