MAHESH THAMPI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this appeal is whether a teacher in an aided school governed by the Kerala Education Act (the Act) and the Kerala Education Rules (the KER), can be dismissed from service on the basis of his conviction in a criminal case, without following the procedures prescribed under Rules 65, 74 and 75 of Chapter XIVA KER.

(2.) The appellant was the petitioner in the writ petition from which the appeal arises. On his conviction in a criminal case, the appellant was dismissed from service without following the procedures prescribed in Rules 65, 74 and 75. The writ petition was instituted challenging the dismissal of the appellant on the ground that a teacher in an aided school governed by the Act and the KER cannot be dismissed from service, even on the basis of his conviction in a criminal case, without following the procedures prescribed in Rules 65, 74 and 75. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage itself, relegating the appellant to the alternative remedy available to him. The appellant is aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) As the writ petition was one instituted raising a pure question of law, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the writ petition and decided the question not only for the purpose of giving a quietus to the dispute, but also for setting a precedent for others to follow in identical situations, as the authorities under the Act before whom the appellant could approach for resolving the dispute are not legally trained to decide such questions. It is now settled that a judicially trained mind with the experience of deciding questions of law is a sine qua non for ensuring correctness in the decisions on pure questions of law [See Madras Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 1]. It is all the more so, as Judges are trained to look at things objectively, uninfluenced by consideration of policy or expediency and the authorities under the Act being only officers exercising quasi-judicial functions, looks at things generally from the stand point of policy and expediency [See M.P. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1966) 1 SCR 466].