Only the Executive Committee may decide regularization of a teacher as Headmaster.

The petitioner was appointed as a PGT (Mathematics) in J&K Sainik School, Mansbal, with effect from 1 April 1986.

He was placed in the selection grade in 1992 and appointed as In-charge Headmaster on 18 August 1994 against a vacancy that had existed since 1990.

In an earlier writ petition, SWP No. 2130/1997, the High Court directed the respondents to consider his claim while taking into account that he had performed the duties of Headmaster since 1994.

The petitioner continued as In-charge Headmaster until his retirement in December 2019.

His claim for regularization was recommended by the Executive Committee in 2018 and considered by the Board of Governors in 2020, which referred the matter for examination by the General Administration Department.

Thereafter, the Principal of the school rejected the claim on 28 April 2023, relying on a 1984 resolution that the post of Headmaster was to be filled by an officer of the rank of Major or equivalent from the Education Branch of the Army, Navy or Air Force.

1. Whether the Principal of J&K Sainik School, Mansbal, was competent to reject the petitioner’s claim for regularization as Headmaster.

2. Whether the petitioner’s claim for regularization could be rejected on the ground that he did not possess a defence-services background or the rank of Major/equivalent.

The Court applied Clause 6.01 of the J&K Sainik School Mansbal Rules and Regulations and Staff Contributory Provident Fund Rules, under which the Executive Committee is vested with the power to appoint the staff of the school, while posts other than Headmaster and Registrar may be filled by the Principal with the prior approval of the Executive Committee.

Since the Headmaster is expressly excluded from the Principal’s appointing authority, the Executive Committee is the competent authority to appoint or regularize a person as Headmaster.

Consequently, an authority lacking power to appoint or regularize cannot independently reject a claim for such appointment or regularization.

The Court also considered the 1984 Board resolution prescribing appointment of a Major or equivalent officer from the Education Branch for the post of Headmaster, but held that the matter had to be examined and decided by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules.

The Court found that the impugned order had been issued by the Principal without the approval of either the Executive Committee or the Board of Governors.

Under Clause 6.01, the Principal was not the appointing authority for the post of Headmaster and therefore lacked jurisdiction not only to regularize the petitioner but also to reject his claim.

Although the petitioner’s case had been placed before the Executive Committee and the Board of Governors, neither competent body had taken a final decision.

The Board had merely sought the opinion of the General Administration Department, which directed that the claim be examined under the rules; it did not authorize the Principal to finally determine the matter.

The proper course was for the Principal to examine the rules, formulate an opinion, and place the matter before the Executive Committee for a lawful decision.

It held that the Principal was not competent to reject the petitioner’s claim for regularization as Headmaster.

The Principal was directed to place the matter, along with his opinion, before the Executive Committee, which was required to reconsider the petitioner’s claim in accordance with the applicable rules within two months from the date of the judgment.