SUSEELAN K. Vs. DEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There was a visit to the petitioner's school on 24-9-1985 by the officers authorised as per the notification Ext. P2 which reads as under:

(2.) The District Educational officer, Neyyattinkara, the first respondent, revisited the school on 18-11-1985. The notes of his visit are recorded in Ext. P3. As per the said notes there will be only 27 divisions in the High School and 14 in the U. P. School, that is, there will be a reduction of 4 divisions for the year 1985-86. The strength of the staff in the school was accordingly fixed by the proceedings Ext. P4 of the first respondent. Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged it, first before the Deputy Director of Education and subsequently before the Director of Public Instruction. The petitioner's appeal/ revision to them stood rejected by the proceedings Exts. P6 and P8. Petitioner challenges Exts. P4, P6 and P8.

(3.) The main ground of challenge is that the Rules in Chap.23 of the Kerala Education Rules (the Rules for short) do not contemplate a second visit or a fixation of pupil strength on the basis of such a visit. This is because the first visit was itself by officers authorised to make such visit by notification issued under Clause.5 of R.2 of Chap.1 of the Rules, namely Ext. P2. This notification entrusted the various parsons mentioned, whose services are requisitioned by the District Educational officer, with the duty of inspection imposed on an educational officer under the Rules, for the limited purpose of assessment of strength of pupils in the schools for the year 1985-86. In other words, there was a delegation of the function of visit, which lies with the District Educational officer, to the authorised persons mentioned, of course, for the limited purpose of assessing the pupil strength for 1985-86. The ultimate authority to pass the staff fixation order was no doubt the District Educational officer himself. Therefore, and in view of the delegation of powers in Ext. P2 a visit by the officers contemplated by Ext. P2 is to be deemed to be exercise of functions by the District Educational Officer himself and hence a second visit or a revision of the pupil strength by a second visit is not authorised. Petitioner contrasts the position in 1985-86 with reference to the position in 1986-87, when a revisit was authorised in the case of increase in divisions by the Government order Ext. P9.