G. SURESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P(C).No.15156/2015. This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P16 order of the 3rd respondent disqualifying the petitioner from holding the post of Manager in the school and any other aided school in the State and also appointing the District Educational Officer as the Manager of the school. The petitioner contends that the 5th respondent, who was the Headmistress of the school, had been placed under suspension on 19.2.2015. By Exhibit P11 order dated 4.3.2015, the educational authorities had conducted an investigation as provided in Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIVA KER. There was a direction to the Manager to reinstate the teacher. The petitioner contends that the petitioner had preferred Exhibit P12 revision against Exhibit P11 order. However, a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner requiring him to show cause why orders shall not been issued disqualifying him. The petitioner submitted Exhibit P14 reply. It had been pointed that a revision petition had been filed against Exhibit P11 order and that the same is pending. By Exhibit P15, the petitioner submitted a further representation dated 18.5.2015 requesting for ten days time for reinstating the 5th respondent. However, by Exhibit P16 order dated 19.5.2015, final orders had been passed by the 3rd respondent disqualifying the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders of disqualification are not in accordance with Rule 7 of Chapter III KER. It is contended that it is only when the disobedience of orders of the educational authorities is established that an order in the nature of Exhibit P16 can be passed. It is further contended that even going by the provisions of Rule 7, the educational authorities should have been required to nominate another Manager and the order directing the appointment of the DEO as the Manager of the School was completely unsustainable. It is further contended that Exhibit P12 revision preferred against Exhibit P11 is pending before the Government and the finding as to disobedience of directions could be found only if Exhibit P11 order is confirmed in revision.

(3.) The 5th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is contended therein that there was an earlier suspension and the petitioner had reinstated the 5th respondent in service only pursuant to Exhibit R5(4) order on threat of departmental action against him. It is stated that the matter was taken up before this Court and this Court dismissed the writ petition. The appeal filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge is pending. It is stated that since there is no stay of reinstatement granted in revision, the non compliance of the orders of the educational authorities is an established fact.