DEVADAR AIDED L.P. SCHOOL Vs. USHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question arising for our consideration in the above Writ Appeal is this; Should Rule 75(5) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (for short 'K.E.R') be read as placing any embargo on a teacher facing disciplinary proceedings from engaging a lawyer when the Manager is represented by a lawyer in the proceedings before the Educational authorities ?

(2.) The appellant is the Manager of an aided Lower Primary School. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by him against the 1st respondent. In enquiry proceedings before the Assistant Educational Officer, the appellant (Manager) was being represented by an Advocate. The request made by the 1st respondent for engaging an Advocate was turned down by the Assistant Educational Officer on the ground that the Rule 75(5) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules specifically prohibited the engagement of a lawyer by the teacher facing the proceedings. The said order of the Assistant Educational Offier was confirmed by the District Educational Officer. The 1st respondent, therefore, preferred W.P.(C)No.13053/2014 (out of which this appeal arises) inter alia challenging the provisions of Rule 75(5) of Chapter XIVA KER and seeking a declaration that she was entitled to be represented by a lawyer of her choice in the enquiry proceedings. A learned Single Judge of this Court, relying on the various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, took the view that the provisions of Rule 75(5) cannot be relied upon to contend that even in cases where the Manager is represented by an Advocate, the delinquent teacher cannot be so represented. The learned Single Judge held that, if such a view is taken of Rule 75(5), the Rule would be arbitrary and discriminatory. The learned Single Judge therefore declared that Rule 75(5) can create an interdiction regarding engagement of a lawyer only where the Manager is not so represented. This appeal is filed challenging the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) On a consideration of the matter, we cannot but hold, that the view taken by the learned Single Judge regarding the scope of Rule 75(5) of Chapter XIVA of KER is correct in law and warrants no interference whatsoever. The decisions cited before the Learned Single Judge, by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, support the view that where the employer engages a legal practitioner it would be a violation of Natural Justice to deny the same right to the employee. We need not refer to all those judgments, in detail, but we note that in Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni, (1983) 1 SCC 124 it was categorically held:-