IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2814 of 2009()
1. RAJEEV.G, H.S.A. (MALAYALAM)
... Petitioner
2. MOHANAKUMARAN NAIR.K,
3. BIJU.P.S,
4. ARUN.P.,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
5. THE HEAD MASTER,
6. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.J.HARIKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :10/12/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A.No.2814/2009
------------------------------
Dated this, the 10th day of December, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellants were the writ petitioners. The Writ
Petition was filed by them, challenging Ext.P3 order of the
Director of Public Instruction (for short “D.P.I.”), revising the
staff fixation order of their school for the academic year 1997-
98, Ext.P4 order of the Government, affirming the same and
also Ext.P5 order of the Government declining to take a different
view than the one taken in Ext.P4. The learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that Ext.P4 was already quashed by this
Court and on reconsideration, in its place, Ext.P5 order was
passed. So, the appellants pressed only the challenge against
Exts.P3 and P5 orders.
2. After the finalisation of the staff fixation order, the
super check cell under the D.P.I made a visit to the school on
3.11.1997. Based on the report of the super check cell, the
WA No.2814/2009
– 2 –
D.P.I issued Ext.P2 notice, proposing to revise the staff fixation
order of the year 1997-98. The irregularities noted by the super
check cell were also stated in Ext.P2. After taking into account
the representations received against the said proposal, the D.P.I
passed final order Ext.P3, reducing one division in Standard
VIII, which resulted in reduction of one H.S.A (core subject),
one H.S.A (Malayalam), one H.S.A (Hindi), one L.D.Clerk and
one F.T.C.M with effect from 15.7.1997. The Manager
challenged Ext.P3 before the Government. The Government
affirmed Ext.P3 by Ext.P4 order. The Manager challenged
Ext.P4 before this Court. This Court, after quashing Ext.P4,
remanded the matter for reconsideration. The Government re-
heard the matter and issued Ext.P5 order. Therefore, the
appellants challenged Exts.P3 and P5 before the learned Single
Judge.
3. The main contention canvassed before the learned
Single Judge was that in view of the time limit contained in Rule
15 of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules (for short
“K.E.R.”), Ext.P3 could not have been passed in August, 1998.
WA No.2814/2009
– 3 –
Such an order could have been passed only on or before
31.3.1998. But, the learned Single Judge took the view that the
said contention cannot be accepted. There is no time limit
provided under Rule 12E(3) and Rule 16 of Chapter XXIII of the
K.E.R., for revising the staff fixation orders. Based on that
finding the Writ Petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
also the learned Government Pleader for the official
respondents. The learned counsel for the appellants, relying on
Rule 15 of Chapter XXIII of the K.E.R., submitted that staff
fixation orders cannot be revised after the end of the academic
years. Rule 15 reads as follows:
“15. Notwithstanding anything contained in
these rules, if Educational Officers are satisfied for
valid and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing
that the fixation of staff strength was obtained by
bogus admission or attendance or by fraud or
misrepresentation, and the like the Educational
Officers shall be competent to refix the staff strength
at any time during the course of the year:
Provided that no order under this rule shall be
issued without notice to the parties who are likely to
be affected thereby.”
We notice that the above Rule applies only to Educational
WA No.2814/2009
– 4 –
Officers and not to the D.P.I. Educational Officer is defined in
Rule 2(5) of Chapter I of the K.E.R., which reads as follows:
“(5) ‘Educational Officer’ means the District
Educational Officer or the Assistant Educational Officer
having immediate inspectional and administrative
control over the school within his respective
jurisdiction. The term shall also include any Officer to
whom the duty of inspection for specific purposes has
been entrusted by competent authority.”
Director is defined in Rule 2(4), which reads as follows:
“(4) ‘Director’ means the Director of Public
Instruction or the Director of Higher Secondary
Education or such officer or officers who may from
time to time be appointed by the Government to
exercise all or any of the powers of the Director of
Public Instruction or the Director of Higher Secondary
Education, as the case may be.”
In view of the said definition, the contention of the appellants
that Educational Officer will take in its fold the D.P.I also and
therefore, the time limit provided under Rule 15 of Chapter
XXIII of the K.E.R also applies to the D.P.I., cannot be accepted.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
Ext.P2 proposal was not served on the appellants. This
submission is disputed by the learned Government Pleader.
Whatever be that, subsequently the appellants were heard by
WA No.2814/2009
– 5 –
the Government, the learned Single Judge and by us also. The
main grievance raised before us for reconsideration was lack of
jurisdiction of the authority concerned to revise the staff fixation
orders after the end of the academic year. The same was the
point raised before the learned Single Judge also. So, the
contention that Ext.P2 was not served on the appellants cannot
be entertained after the lapse of 11 years.
In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed.
K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.
P. Bhavadasan,
Judge.
nm.