RAVINDRANATHA PILLAI Vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the Manager of an aided High School. Second respondent fixed staff strength of the School for the year 1993-94 as per Ext. P1. This was done after due verification of strength and attendance of pupils by the 2nd respondent. The disputed class divisions are Standards VI and VII. Ext. P1 reveals that the roll strength, verified attendance strength and effective strength of the post in the two standards are 192, 177, 187, 239, 220 and 232 respectively. Later, 2nd respondent issued Ext. P3 order after giving notice to the petitioner by which one division each in Standard VI and VII and consequently posts of two Upper Primary School Assistants were abolished with effect from 15.7.1993., Obviously, the 2nd respondent has passed this order in exercise of the powers conferred on him as per R.15 Chap.23 Kerala Education Rules. The challenge in this Original Petition is against Ext. P3 order.

(2.) Therefore, in order to consider the legality of Ext. P3 order we have to look into the scope and ambit of the powers conferred on the Educational authorities under R.15 Chap.23 K.E.R. which reads as follows:

(3.) A reading of the Rule will show that the order can be passed under that Rule only if the educational authorities came to the conclusion that fixation of staff strength was obtained by bogus admission or attendance or by fraud or by misrepresentation. None of these grounds exists in this case. Ext. P3 order does not say that the earlier fixation of staff was due to the bogus admission granted by the petitioner or it was obtained by fraud or by misrepresentation. In the absence of these, I do not think that Ext. P3 can be sustained under R.15 of Chap.23 KER when the Rule empowers the educational authorities to interfere to set at naught the fixation of staff strength only when they are satisfied about the existence of the grounds mentioned above. The action can be upheld only if it is found that the grounds mentioned in that Section exists and that too for valid and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing. In this case, such a foundation to invoke the Rule is lacking in. I am fortified in taking the above view by a Ruling of this Court in Nalini Kumari v. State of Kerala ( ILR 1975 (1) Ker. 496 ). In the above Ruling this court went a step further and held that the educational Officer should go into the details and examine individual cases of pupils who are removed for long absence and for other reasons. Without making such an enquiry, it cannot be said that the pupils removed from the roll were really bogus admissions. In this case, if such an enquiry was conducted by the 2nd respondent, it was possible for him to come to the conclusion that pupils left the school because Transfer Certificates were issued by the Headmaster at the instance of 2nd respondent himself.