Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.@mdashWe have heard the learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the appellant, State. Respondents are
the petitioners in the writ petition, from which this appeal arises. They are Principals of Aided Higher Secondary Schools.
2. The question whether the Higher Secondary Schools can work without a Principal is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in
Aided Higher Secondary School Teachers Association Vs. State of Kerala, .
3. Now, reverting to the facts, it can be seen that the first writ petitioner was selected and appointed as Principal before Chapter XXXII was
introduced in KER. That selection was done by a duly constituted select committee and the first writ petitioner is entitled to have his appointment
as Principal approved with effect from 26.07.2000, the date of such selection. As far as the second writ petitioner is concerned, the selection
committee met on 23.09.2004 and he was selected. That selection was after Chapter XXXII was introduced in KER. He was discharging duties
of Principal even before that. Therefore, the learned single Judge has held that he is entitled to have his appointment as Principal approved at least
with effect from 23.09.2004. The consequential directions do not give the petitioners any particular pay scale otherwise than what is due to them
by virtue of such appointment. The terminal benefits were also ordered to be calculated and released accordingly. We find no legal infirmity or
error in the impugned judgment. Writ appeal, therefore, fails.
In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed.
