The Manager vs Mohamed Jishad K & Ors.

Muralee Krishna S., J.

Respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.(C)No.34199 of 2025 filed this intra-court appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

Respondents 1 and 2- writ petitioners, have been working as HST(English) in AKM Higher Secondary School, Kottoor, Malappuram, with effect from 01.01.2013 and 02.06.2014, respectively. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the school imparts education from 5ᵗʰ standard to Higher Secondary classes, and there are nearly 170 teaching staff members in the school from upper primary to secondary classes. The school has trained teachers for extracurricular activities like Scouts and Guides.

In the writ petition, the appellants-respondents 4 and 5 filed a counter affidavit dated 18.09.2025 producing therewith Ext.R4 document. In the counter affidavit, it is inter alia contended that due to the increase in students for the Scout, respondents 1 and 2, being male teachers, were selected and informed to attend the training programme. During the previous academic year also, by notice dated 22.07.2023 and 09.07.2024, respondents 1 and 2 were informed to undergo training as scheduled by the Scout. At that time, they were relieved on the undertaking that they would attend the training next year. It is further contended in the counter affidavit that Rule 10 of Chapter VIII of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (‘KER’ for short), describes the Scouts and Guides activities in the school. As per Rule 12 of Chapter IX of the KER, teachers are bound to perform to the best of their abilities the teaching and other items of work allotted to them. Therefore, the 1^st appellant initiated disciplinary proceedings against respondents 1 and 2 and suspended them from service strictly in accordance with the provisions under Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A of the KER. In fact, respondents 1 and 2 were given so many chances and time to undergo this training as scheduled by the Scout. However, due to the adamant attitude of respondents 1 and 2, the appellants are constrained to initiate disciplinary proceedings and suspend respondents 1 and 2 for the smooth functioning and administration of the school.

After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 13.10.2025, allowed the writ petition by setting aside Exts.P9 and P9(a) suspension orders dated 15.09.2025, and directed the 1^st appellant to reconsider the reply submitted by respondents 1 and 2 to the show cause notices and take a decision after hearing them. It was also made clear in that judgment that respondents 1 and 2 may produce additional materials regarding the medical condition, and the 1^st appellant need not insist on the requirement under the Kerala Service Rules (‘KSR’ for short), and all that is required is whether the reasons stated are supported by acceptable documents. In the judgment, by refering to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Aswanth K. L. v. Regional Transport Authority [2025 (2) KHC 127] the learned Single Judge found that since no penal consequences are contemplated for violation, Rule 10 of Chapter VIII of the KER is only a directive provision and not a mandatory provision. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellants have filed the present writ appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

The learned counsel for the appellants argued that as per Rule 10 of Chapter VIII of the KER, extra-curricular activities should form an integral part of education imparted in the school and the Headmaster and all the teachers should devote a definite time to such activities. Therefore, it is a mandatory duty on the teachers to devote time to such activities. As per Rule 10(i) of Chapter VIII of the KER, Scouts and Guides are activities coming under the aforesaid extra-curricular activities. Respondents 1 and 2 attended a one-day basic training for Scouts held at Malappuram. However, they refused to participate in the one-week basic training to be imparted at the training centre for Scouts and Guides at Thiruvananthapuram. Being participated in the basic training for one day, refusal to attend further basic training despite specific directions from the management and the Headmaster is sufficient to invite disciplinary proceedings for insubordination and dereliction of duty. By pointing out Clause (vii) of Chapter XIII of the KER, the learned counsel argued that a person employed as a teacher in a school shall not be eligible to continue as a teacher, if he refuses without sufficient grounds to undergo a course of training within a reasonable time after being required to do so. By pointing out Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A of the KER, the learned counsel further argued that the Manager may at any time place a teacher under suspension when disciplinary proceedings against him are contemplated or are pending. In this case, the Manager issued a show-cause notice to respondents 1 and 2 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, and therefore, the action of the Manager is perfectly justified. He has further forwarded a report in the matter together with reasons for suspension to the District Educational Officer as provided under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A of the KER. By pointing out Rule 67(8A) of Chapter XIV A of the KER, the learned counsel submitted that respondents 1 and 2-writ petitioners have a statutory remedy of revision before the Educational Officer and it is without exercising the same, they approached this Court with the writ petition. The learned Single Judge failed to consider these aspects while allowing the writ petition.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2-writ petitioners argued that the respondents 1 and 2 requested for their exemption from participation in one week basic training due to personal reasons. The 1^st respondent has been suffering from urological complaints, as evident from Ext.P5 follow-up sheets as well as the medical prescriptions submitted by him along with Ext.P4 explanation dated 27.08.2025 before the 1^st appellant. Similarly, the mother of the 2^nd respondent is seriously laid up due to illness, and there is no other person to look after her, as evident from the documents produced along with Ext.P6 reply statement submitted by him and also from Ext.P8 letter dated 10.09.2025 written by his mother. Therefore, the action of the appellants is ill-motivated. The learned counsel, by relying on the findings in the impugned judgment as well as the relevant provisions in the KER, argued that no penal consequences are provided for non-participation in the extra-curricular activities mentioned in Rule 10 of Chapter VIII of the KER, and therefore, it can only be treated as a directive. According to the learned counsel, respondents 1 and 2 are not liable to be subjected to any disciplinary action, and therefore, a writ petition is perfectly maintainable. Apart from relying on the judgment in Aswanth K. L. [2025 (2) KHC 127], relied on by the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel further relied on the judgment of another Single Bench of this Court in Subramanian v. State of Kerala [2024 (6) KHC 375], to support his argument regarding the mandatory and directive nature of certain provisions in a statute.

The learned Senior Government Pleader would argue that the District Educational Officer did not take a decision in the suspension order of respondents 1 and 2 as provided under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A of the KER, since meanwhile the learned Single Judge stayed the operation of the suspension order.

There are some admitted facts in this case. Respondents 1 and 2-writ petitioners who are teachers of AKM HSS, Kottoor, have participated in a one-day basic training of the extra-curricular activity of Scouts, held at Malappuram. However, even after being requested by the manager, they refused to participate in the subsequent basic training of one week scheduled to be held at Thiruvananthapuram. According to the 1^st respondent, he is suffering from urological problems, and it is impossible for him to participate in the training for one week due to the health issues. According to the 2^nd respondent, his mother is seriously ill, and there is no other person to look after her since she has to be taken for dialysis every week. It is also not in dispute that in the previous academic year, a show-cause notice was issued to the 1^st respondent for non-participation in the basic training of Scouts and that proceedings were closed in view of Ext.R4 letter dated 24.09.2024 submitted by the 1^st respondent assuring that he will participate in the training in the next academic year. The contention of respondents 1 and 2 is that since participation in extra-curricular activities does not provide any penal consequences in Chapter VIII of the KER, disciplinary proceedings cannot be contemplated against them for the said non-participation. On the other hand, the contention of the appellants is that since, as per Rule 10 of Chapter VIII of the KER, extra-curricular activities are directed to be imparted in a school and teachers are directed to devote definite time to such activities, the non-participation of respondents 1 and 2 in the basic training even after the specific direction for the same given by the Manager is nothing but insubordination and dereliction of duty.

Rule 10 of Chapter VIII of the KER deals with Extra-curricular activities, which reads thus;

Clause (vii) of Chapter XIII of the KER, which deals with General rules relating to the conduct of teachers, provides that any person employed as a teacher in a school shall not be eligible to continue as a teacher if he refuses without sufficient grounds to undergo a course of training within a reasonable time after being required to do so. Whether the inability or unwillingness of respondents 1 and 2, pointing out personal inconveniences as stated above is a sufficient ground as stated in Clause (vii) of Chapter XIII or whether the extra-curricular activities mentioned in Rule 10 of Chapter VIII will come under a course of training mentioned in Clause (vii) of Chapter XIII of the KER are matters to be considered, based on the rival contentions of the parties. However, while going through various provisions under Chapter XIVA of the KER, we notice that disputed points raised in this case as mentioned above are not matters to be considered in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Rule 67(1)(a), 8 and 8A of Chapter XIVA of the KER read thus;

Similarly, as per Rule 79 of Chapter XIV A of the KER, a teacher may appeal against an order of suspension to the authority to which made or is deemed to have made the order is immediately subordinate. It is without exercising the said right under Rule 79 that respondents 1 and 2 approached this Court with the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. Though respondents 1 and 2-writ petitioners contend that the suspension order issued by the 1^st appellant Manager is violating the provisions of law and hence a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable, having considered the pleadings and the materials on record, we are of the view that there are materials that prima facie support the contentions of the manager that the disobedience of respondents 1 and 2 from attending the basic training, despite specific direction by the 1^st appellant Manager, will attract disciplinary proceedings for insubordination and dereliction of duty. The mandatory or directive nature of a statute mentioned in Aswanth K. L. [2025 (2) KHC 127], and in Subramanian [2024 (6) KHC 375] are in respect of some other statutory provisions which have no connection at all to the provisions in the KER, and therefore, they are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Since the order of suspension issued by the Manager is not considered by the Educational Officer as provided under Rule 67(8) of Chapter VIXA of the KER due to the stay order in the writ petition, the remedy of respondents 1 and 2 is under Rule 79 of Chapter XIV A of the KER, and not a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

In the result, this writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 13.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.34199 of 2025 and the writ petition filed on 16.09.2025 is disposed of leaving open the right of the respondents 1 and 2-writ petitioners to avail the statutory remedy against Exts.P9 and P9(a) suspension orders, by filing an appeal before the statutory authority provided under Rule 79 of Chapter XIVA of the KER. It is made clear that the observations made in this judgment regarding the prima facie satisfaction pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings contemplated against respondents 1 and 2 are made only for disposal of this writ appeal, and the parties are at liberty to raise all the available contentions before the authority mentioned in Rule 79 of Chapter XIVA of the KER, and the said authority shall pass orders, in the statutory appeal, if any, filed by the respondents 1 and 2, untrammelled by the observations in this judgment.