A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court ...upheld the Government order regarding the appointments to the posts of higher secondary school teachers in the Government and aided schools in the State.
The Bench comprising Mr. Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Ms. Justice D. Sreedevi upheld the order issued on May 13, 1998 while dismissing a batch of writ petition challenging the order.
The Government order says that 25 per cent of the vacancies will be reserved for appointment from among the qualified high school assistants and primary school teachers and the rest will be filled by direct recruitment through the Public Service Commission in the case of Government schools and by the selection committee in the case of aided schools. The order further said that if qualified teachers were not available, the management could fill such vacancies (25 per cent) through direct recruitment. ... The Judges ruled that for appointment of higher secondary school teachers from among the existing school teachers, the principle of reservation and communal rotation could not be applied ...
Not Governed by KER Rules
The Court held that the higher secondary schools established under the new 10+2+3 system were not governed by the Kerala Education Rules (KER) ... that the high school assistants and primary school teachers who were governed by the KERs could not prefer any claim for appointment as higher secondary school teachers on the basis of the KERs ... That the private aided schools teachers did not have any right whatsoever to get appointed as higher secondary school teachers in their schools.
The Court directed the State Government to frame statutory rules and regulations for selection and appointment of Plus Two teachers before the commencement of next academic year.
The prescription of quota and the constitution of selection committee for the aided schools did not fetter any right of the educational agencies.
Minority Institutions
The Bench further held that the prescription of quota and the constitution of the selection committee for appointment of higher secondary teachers in the minority management schools from among the existing school teachers were not violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
The minority institutions had contended that no reservation in any form could be made in the minority institutions. The Government could only prescribe qualifications for the post.
They had also challenged the constitution of the selection committee. The committee consisted of manager or his representative, principal of the school and a government member from the panel of Deputy Director of Education, District Education Officer of the area and the Principal of DIET of the district.
The Bench pointed out that the management could select a nominee from any of the officers of his choice. Therefore, the constitution of the selection committee could not be said to be unreasonable. Besides, two of the members in the committee were from the management side. The Court said that it was well settled that the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution ... was not an absolute right" and it could be subject to regulations. What was to be seen was whether the Government interfered "substantially in the autonomy of the religious minority to administer their educational institutions".
If the object of the Government regulation was only to improve the tone and tenor of the administration, the regulation could be upheld. The Court said that "the core of the freedom of the minority educational institutions to select and appointment of teachers of their choice had not been affected. The regulation was only for the betterment of the selection process. (Source: The Hindu, 19 August, 1998)