AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Balakrishnan Nair, J.—The appellants were the writ petitioners. The Writ Petition was filed by them, challenging Ext.P3 order of the Director of Public Instruction (for short "D.P.I."), revising the staff fixation order of their school for the academic year 1997- 98, Ext.P4 order of the Government, affirming the same and also Ext.P5 order of the Government declining to take a different view than the one taken in Ext.P4. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that Ext.P4 was already quashed by this Court and on reconsideration, in its place, Ext.P5 order was passed. So, the appellants pressed only the challenge against Exts.P3 and P5 orders.
After the finalisation of the staff fixation order, the super check cell under the D.P.I made a visit to the school on 3.11.1997. Based on the report of the super check cell, the D.P.I issued Ext.P2 notice, proposing to revise the staff fixation order of the year 1997-98. The irregularities noted by the super check cell were also stated in Ext.P2. After taking into account the representations received against the said proposal, the D.P.I passed final order Ext.P3, reducing one division in Standard VIII, which resulted in reduction of one H.S.A (core subject), one H.S.A (Malayalam), one H.S.A (Hindi), one L.D. Clerk and one F.T.C.M with effect from 15.7.1997. The Manager challenged Ext.P3 before the Government. The Government affirmed Ext.P3 by Ext.P4 order. The Manager challenged Ext.P4 before this Court. This Court, after quashing Ext.P4, remanded the matter for reconsideration. The Government re- heard the matter and issued Ext.P5 order. Therefore, the appellants challenged Exts.P3 and P5 before the learned Single Judge.
The main contention canvassed before the learned Single Judge was that in view of the time limit contained in Rule 15 of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules (for short "K.E.R."), Ext.P3 could not have been passed in August, 1998. Such an order could have been passed only on or before 31.3.1998. But, the learned Single Judge took the view that the said contention cannot be accepted. There is no time limit provided under Rule 12E(3) and Rule 16 of Chapter XXIII of the K.E.R., for revising the staff fixation orders. Based on that finding the Writ Petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.
We heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and also the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents. The learned Counsel for the appellants, relying on Rule 15 of Chapter XXIII of the K.E.R., submitted that staff fixation orders cannot be revised after the end of the academic years. Rule 15 reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, if Educational Officers are satisfied for valid and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing that the fixation of staff strength was obtained by bogus admission or attendance or by fraud or misrepresentation, and the like the Educational Officers shall be competent to refix the staff strength at any time during the course of the year:
Provided that no order under this rule shall be issued without notice to the parties who are likely to be affected thereby.
We notice that the above Rule applies only to Educational Officers and not to the D.P.I. Educational Officer is defined in Rule 2(5) of Chapter I of the K.E.R., which reads as follows:
(5) ''Educational Officer'' means the District Educational Officer or the Assistant Educational Officer having immediate inspectional and administrative control over the school within his respective jurisdiction. The term shall also include any Officer to whom the duty of inspection for specific purposes has been entrusted by competent authority.
Director is defined in Rule 2(4), which reads as follows:
(4) ''Director'' means the Director of Public Instruction or the Director of Higher Secondary Education or such officer or officers who may from time to time be appointed by the Government to exercise all or any of the powers of the Director of Public Instruction or the Director of Higher Secondary Education, as the case may be.
In view of the said definition, the contention of the appellants that Educational Officer will take in its fold the D.P.I also and therefore, the time limit provided under Rule 15 of Chapter XXIII of the K.E.R also applies to the D.P.I., cannot be accepted.
The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that Ext.P2 proposal was not served on the appellants. This submission is disputed by the learned Government Pleader. Whatever be that, subsequently the appellants were heard by the Government, the learned Single Judge and by us also. The main grievance raised before us for reconsideration was lack of jurisdiction of the authority concerned to revise the staff fixation orders after the end of the academic year. The same was the point raised before the learned Single Judge also. So, the contention that Ext.P2 was not served on the appellants cannot be entertained after the lapse of 11 years.
In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed.