M.R. SHYNI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.(C).No.11570/2012 alone are narrated in this judgment.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.11570/2012 is the Manager of an Aided Upper Primary School which also has a Lower Primary Section. From 1976 onwards, there had been 14 divisions sanctioned in the School and this position continued till 2008-09. Pursuant to a one - day verification done in the School on 14.7.2009, one division in the Ist standard was reduced in the staff fixation order for the academic year 2009-10. While passing the said order, however, the 4th respondent did not consider the increased student strength in Vth standard by virtue of which an additional division could have been sanctioned. Thus, while the net result of the staff fixation should have been the reduction of one division in Ist standard and the increase of one division in Vth standard, the 4th respondent only took into account the reduction of one division in Ist standard and accordingly only 13 divisions were sanctioned for the academic year 2009-10.

(3.) Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order of the 3rd respondent, to the extent it did not sanction the additional division in the Vth standard, the petitioner preferred a further revision before the 2nd respondent. The said revision petition also came to be dismissed by Ext.P4 order of the 2nd respondent wherein also, the stand taken is that the additional division could not be sanctioned on account of want of a higher level verification which was mandatory. Against Ext.P4 order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner preferred a second revision before the 1st respondent. By Ext.P6 order, the 1st respondent confirmed the stand taken by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P4 order and accordingly it was held that, for sanctioning the additional division, a higher level verification is mandatory and insofar as the Manager had not taken any action for conducting a higher level verification, the additional division could not be sanctioned. It is relevant to note that against Ext.P6 order, the petitioner appears to have filed a further review petition before the Government and that came to be dismissed by the 1st respondent vide Ext.P7 order. Ext.P7 order is admittedly one that is passed without jurisdiction in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Anilkumar v. State of Kerala, 2009 3 KerLT 650 . The writ petition is filed by the petitioner Manager aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P4 orders to the extent the 1st and 2nd respondents have taken the stand that the additional division in Vth standard could not be sanctioned during the year for want of a higher level verification by the District Educational Authority.