N SUKUMARA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question that arises in this petition is about the validity of the orders, Exts. P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7 and P8 passed by the educational authorities in purported exercise of their powers under the Kerala Education Rules framed under the Kerala Education Act, 1958. The short argument raised before us is that in view of the Full Bench ruling of this Court in Assistant Educational Officer v. P. R. Mammoo ( 1968 KLT 556 ), it is clear that the educational authorities have no competence to impose punishments on teachers or headmasters of aided schools and therefore all these orders must be set aside as having been passed without jurisdiction. The case could have easily been disposed of by setting aside these orders in view of the pronouncement of the Full Bench in the above said decision but for the intervention of the Kerala Education (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) and the passing of the Kerala Education (Amendment) Act, 1969 (for short the Act) replacing the Ordinance. In view of the Ordinance and the Act it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the orders are valid and should not be interfered with. We shall examine this question. Before that we may state the facts. The orders Exts, P1, P2, P3 and, P4 were passed by the District Educational Officer, imposing various punishments on the headmaster, the petitioner before us. Ext. P5 is the order in appeal from Ext. P3 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction. Ext. P6 is the order in appeal from Ext. P4, by the same authority. Ext. P7 is another order passed in appeal by the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction. The original order of the District Educational Officer which gave rise to Ext. P7 has not been produced before us. From Ext. P1 order, it is stated, that an appeal had been taken to the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction but that the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction did not deal with that appeal and therefore a revision was taken before the Government under R.92 of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules. This revision was rejected by Ext. P8 and Ext. P6 has been challenged on the additional ground that there has been failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Government. We shall deal with this contention separately. To complete the facts, we shall refer to Ext. P9 also, which is an order passed by the Government on the representation made by the petitioner soon after Ext. P8. By Ext. P9 order this representation was rejected.

(2.) The question whether the educational authorities have jurisdiction to Impose punishments on teachers of aided schools will have to be answered with reference to the provisions in the Ordinance. By S.2 of the Ordinance a new section, S.12 A, has been introduced in the Kerala Education Act. What is more significant is, by sub-s.(2) of S.1 of the Ordinance it is provided that the Ordinance shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from the 1st day of June, 1959. That was the date on which the Kerala Education Act came into force. The effect of this provision in the Ordinance is to make S.12A introduced in the Kerala Education Act to take effect from the 1st June, 1959. There was a further provision under S.3 of the Ordinance which we may, extract:

(3.) This, we believe, is a provision by way of abundant caution. Even without this provision in view of the promulgation of the Ordinance with retrospective effect from 1st June, 1959 we may have to assume for all purposes that action taken before the amendment was taken as authorised by S.12A of the Act. This is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in Venkatachala v. Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (34 ITR 143). We shall extract S.12A: