Dismissed

Sr. Sara Jane v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 May 2016WP(C)/2275/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the reduction of a class division and the proposed recovery of salary loss from a school Headmaster following the verification of bogus student admissions and attendance irregularities, holding the orders lawful.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the reduction of a class division and recovery of loss was dismissed.

Sr. Sara Jane Vs the State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2275 of 2012 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SR. SARA JANE, DAUGHTER OF V.V. VARU, AGED 65 YEARS, CORPORATE MANAGER, NAVAJYOTHI EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, P.O. PULLAZHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 014.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680 003.

¶13

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR EAST, PIN- 680 005.

¶14

5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR EAST, PIN- 680 005.

¶15

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BABY THOMAS.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

WP(C).No. 2275 of 2012 (H)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.C-1837/2010/D.DIS. OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 16/08/2010.

¶22

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE VISIT REPORT OF THE SUPER CHECK OFFICER DATED 03/09/2010 AND 14/12/2010.

¶23

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.SC-352/2010/KKD/THR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06/01/2011.

¶24

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE HEADMASTER OF THE SCHOOL DATED 19/01/2011.

¶25

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SC/352/2010-11/KKD/THR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31/03/2011.

¶26

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT BY THE HEADMASTER OF THE SCHOOL DATED 19/05/2011.

¶27

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C-726/11 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATED 30/03/2011.

¶28

EXT.P8 COPY OF THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE HEADMASTER OF THE SCHOOL DATED NIL.

¶29

EXT.P9 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C-110/2011 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 21/06/2011.

¶30

EXT.P10 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.RA(1) 67927/90/L.DIS./DPI OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09/10/1990.

¶31

EXT.P11 COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.4664/09/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 10/11/2009.

¶32

EXT.P12 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.15701/2011-K DATED 10/06/2011.

¶33

EXT.P13 COPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 28/10/2011.

¶34

EXT.P14 COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.5351/2011/G.EDN. DATED 30/11/2011 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

¶35

.....2/-

¶36

WP(C).No. 2275 of 2012 (H)

¶37

EXT.P15 COPY OF THE ONE DAY VERIFICATION REPORT 2011-12 DATED 12/07/2011.

¶38

EXT.P16 COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2011-2012 OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER DATED 27/10/2011.

¶39

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C) No.2275 of 2012

¶45

Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2016

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

The petitioner is the Corporate Manager of St.George CLP School, Mukkattukara. It is stated that there are five High Schools, four UP Schools and four LP Schools under the corporate management. Challenge in this writ petition is against the reduction of one division in Standard II ordered on the basis of verification by the Super Check Cell as per Ext.P5 order under rule 12E(3) read with Rule 16 of Chapter 23 of KER.

¶48

In Ext.P1 staff fixation proceedings for the year 2010-11

¶49

in respect of St.George CLP School (hereinafter referred to as the School for short), the Assistant Educational Officer, Thrissur had sanctioned 16 divisions with four divisions each for Standard I to IV. Verified attendance of pupils of Standard I to IV as on the 6^th working day was shown in Ext.P1 staff fixation proceedings as 138, 137, 142 and 152 respectively as against actual roll strength of 145, 144, 150 and 160 respectively. On 3.9.2010, the Super Check Cell conducted an inspection in the school and verified the attendance, which was 114, 114, 133 and 140

¶50

:2:

¶51

W.P.(C) No.2275 of 2012

¶52

respectively. There were 107 absentees on the first day of visit. Seeing that there were bogus admissions, the Headmaster was directed to remove bogus pupils and report the matter before the super check officer, as per Ext.P2 inspection note dated 3.9.2010. The Super Check Cell thereafter again visited the school on 14.12.2010 in continuation of the earlier visit. On the basis of the report received, the Director of Public Instruction issued Ext.P3 letter to the Manager of the School stating that the strength as verified by the super check officer was not sufficient for maintaining the class divisions and posts sanctioned by the Assistant Educational Officer in Ext.P1 staff fixation proceedings. The super check officer found that the teachers regularly marked attendance of the bogus pupils without actual roll call. The bogus/irregular admissions were marked as present on the day of visit of one day verification on 2.8.2010 saying that the strength was verified with this irregularity. It was further found that the Headmaster had removed 13 students from the roll after the 6^th working day before the first visit of the super check officer. Therefore it was found that the school authorities had adopted unfair means to boost up the strength of pupils to

¶53

:3:

¶54

W.P.(C) No.2275 of 2012

¶55

maintain the class divisions. In the list of pupils who were absent on both days of verification, 10 pupils were from standard II. Out of those 10 pupils, 4 were shown as removed after first verification by the super check officer i.e serial Nos.9, 11, 13 and 14 of standard II were shown as removed on 23.11.2010, 29.10.2010, 31.8.2010 and 31.8.2010 respectively. After excluding the bogus admissions from the roll strength, the Super

¶56

Check Cell found that the effective strength of class II would only come to 137 for which three posts alone would be admissible for the year 2010-11 as against the four divisions already sanctioned. Thus the total number of divisions admissible for the school was found to be only 15. Accordingly, the Manager as well as the Headmaster were directed to submit representations, if any, against further proceedings including the recovery of loss sustained by the Government by way of payment of salary to the teachers who worked against the irregular posts. Headmaster submitted explanation to the show cause notice stating that he has not committed any misrepresentation or fault. It was stated that in the one day verification the actual strength was made correctly and 16 divisions were sanctioned by the Assistant

¶57

:4:

¶58

W.P.(C) No.2275 of 2012

¶59

Educational Officer; there were ten absentees in II^nd standard on both days of visit by Super Check Cell and out of them the Super Check Cell itself had found that four were removed from the rolls; those pupils were removed on account of pro-longed absence and not because their admissions were bogus.

¶60

After considering the objections and hearing the Headmaster as well as the teachers, Ext.P5 order was passed confirming the decision to reduce the division. Further it was found that the Headmaster was responsible for the admission, removal and maintenance of records as per rules and hence the loss sustained by the Government had to be recovered from the Headmaster. Accordingly, the Deputy Director of Education was directed to take further action in the matter.

¶61

The Headmaster filed Ext.P6 revision petition before the Secretary to Government, General Education Department. By Ext.P9 proceedings dated 21.6.2011, the Assistant Educational Officer in implementation of the orders of the Director of Public Instruction, retrenched the junior most teacher and fixed the salary paid to her for the period from 15.7.2010 to 31.12.2010 as liability of the Headmaster, who was responsible for the bogus

¶62

:5:

¶63

W.P.(C) No.2275 of 2012

¶64

admission. Government thereafter passed Ext.P14 order, exempting the Headmaster from the liability i.e from recovery of loss sustained to the Government, as it was found that the affected teacher was already accommodated in some other school under the management itself.

¶65

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 show cause notice issued by the super check cell proposing reduction of class division, recovery of proposed loss from the Headmaster and the order of the Super Check Cell and the reduction of class divisions ordered in Ext.P5 and recovery ordered in Ext.P9. The petitioner also challenges Ext.P14 to the extent it failed to consider genuineness of students found as bogus.

¶66

The Government has filed counter affidavit justifying the action of the Super Check Cell and the consequential proceedings issued by the Director of Public Instruction stating that the verification of the students by the Super Check Cell was strictly in accordance with rules. As per the verified strength, it was found that ten pupils were absent in II^nd standard on the dates of verification by the Super Check Cell on 3.9.2010 and 4.12.2010 and that those 10 were bogus admissions. So the staff fixation

¶67

W.P.(C) No.2275 of 2012

¶68

:6:

¶69

was revised excluding these 10 students. Being a school under Corporate Management, the school is not eligible to retain the retrenched teacher applying 1:40 ratio. In such schools the Corporate Manager should provide them any other schools under their management.

¶70

I heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and considered the contentions.

¶71

The contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that there were only six bogus admissions, since removal of four pupils from the rolls was subsequent to the first visit by the Super Check Cell. This contention was raised before the Director of Public Instruction who considered the same and found that all the ten pupils who remained absent at the time of both the verifications by the Super Check Cell, were of bogus admissions and four pupils out of the 10, referred to by the petitioner were removed subsequent to the inspection by the Super Check Cell. The petitioner was not able to substantiate the contention that those pupils were removed from the school on account of prolonged absence, that too subsequent to the direction of the super check officer contained in Ext.P2.

¶72

:7:

¶73

W.P.(C) No.2275 of 2012

¶74

Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that in case the bogus admission come down to six, there will be 142 pupils in the rolls which will justify sanctioning of four divisions. But no material is seen placed before the Director of Public Instruction or Government to substantiate the contention that those 4 pupils were removed after the date of first verification, because of any reason other than the direction of Director of Public Instruction to

¶75

sent out bogus admissions. Removal of pupils after first verification cannot absolve the Headmaster from the statutory responsibility of Headmaster under Chapter VI and VII of KER. At any rate this contention raised by the petitioner has already been considered by the educational authorities and rejected. No ground is made out for an interference against the impugned orders which are passed by the competent authorities in accordance with rules, after affording opportunity for hearing. Hence I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings.

¶76

The petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in

¶77

W.A.No.2112 of 2012 dated 26.2.2014 in which, relying on the judgment dated 25.6.2009 in W.A.No.1288 of 2007, it was held

¶78

W.P.(C) No.2275 of 2012

¶79

:8:

¶80

that recovery of loss can be effected from the Headmaster only as part of the disciplinary proceedings and as long as no disciplinary proceedings is initiated against the Headmaster, no recovery can be effected. It is seen that the Headmaster, the appellant therein also challenged the proceedings for recovery on the basis of the proceedings initiated after enquiry by the Super Check Cell.

¶81

In view of the judgment of the Division Bench, the question of recovery from the Headmaster will be governed by the law laid down in W.A.No.2112 of 2012, according to which recovery can be made only after initiating disciplinary proceedings. At any rate in this case, Headmaster is already exempted in Ext.P14 seeing that the retrenched teacher was accommodated in another school under the corporate educational agency.

¶82

With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶83

Sd/-

¶84

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶85

rkc

Sr. Sara Jane v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sr. Sara Jane v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bindu P.V. Vs the Secretary to General Education Dept.

M.v.Sivadas Vs the District Level Expert Committee

Ayyappan Vs District Labour Officer

Mary P.M. Vs State of Kerala

P.S.Suimol Vs the State of Kerala

The Manager,St.Mary'Senglishmediumschool Vs Cbse, Rep. by Its Chairman/Manager