IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 3778 of 2004(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF SCHOOLS, CATHOLIC BISHOP'S HOUSE, PB NO.71, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (H) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ETTUMANOOR. 4. CELINE K.JOHN AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.LUKOSE ANDOOR PO, NEENDOOR PO KOTTAYAM (ADDL R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.13.12.2005 IN IA 18209/05) BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1,2,3 SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 3778/04 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EHXIBITS : EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DT.14.7.200 ISSUED BY R3 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.25.7.2001 ISSUED BY THE DPI EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT LETTER DT.6.4.2002 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE VISIT REPORT DT.9.7.2002 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DT.12.7.2001 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.22.12.2003 ISSUED BY R3 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.23.6.1997 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF GOVT LETTER DT.4.3.1997 TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Writ Petition (C) No.3778 of 2004-Y -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment The petitioner, who is the Manager of an aided school, has approached this court, challenging Ext.P6 order of the Government, by which Standard V in the said school was abolished. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following : The Assistant Educational Officer, as per Ext.P1 staff fixation order dated 14.07.2000 for the academic year 2000-01, abolished Standard V in the petitioner's school for want of minimum strength of students. The petitioner appealed. The appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Education by order dated 08.12.2000. The Manager preferred a revision dated 26.12.2000 before the Director of Public Instruction. The DPI allowed the revision and restored Standard V in the petitioner's school. Thereafter, the Government suo motu revised that order by Ext.P6 dated 22.12.2003. The petitioner attacks the said order on the ground that the same was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice as the Manager and the affected teacher were not heard. Secondly, it was submitted that the abolition of that division was permissible only after putting the Manager WPC 3778/04 2 on 30 days' notice. 3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit supporting the impugned order. They have not dealt with the contention of the petitioner regarding violation of the principles of natural justice. But, going by Ext.P3, it is seen that the Government considered the representations filed by the Manager on 22.04.2002 and that of the affected teacher, on 07.12.2002. Those representations were filed long after the passing of Ext.P2 order of the DPI dated 25.07.2001. So, it can be safely assumed that the Government had, before suo motu revising the order as per Ext.P6, issued notice to the Manager and the affected teacher. Otherwise, there was no occasion for them to file any representation, as Ext.P2 was passed in their favour. The right to hearing in appropriate cases will be satisfied, if the affected person is given a chance to represent against the action proposed against him. In all the cases, the hearing need not be by words of mouth. Further, even assuming there is lack of hearing, the same will not affect the validity of the order, unless the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice. If the decision of the Government is correct in law, it being an objective decision, the remand of the matter for re-hearing will be an empty formality and waste of time for all concerned. This court will not WPC 3778/04 3 normally issue such futile directions. So, it is only appropriate to examine the merits of the case of the petitioner. 4. The Government have stated in its counter affidavit that the Director of Public Instruction allowed the revision, relying on Government letter No.26743/F1/97/G.Edn., dated 23.06.1997. Later, the Government issued Letter No.43831/F1/G.Edn., dated 13.08.1997, stating that the said order is applicable to all uneconomic L.P. schools having 5th standard subject to the condition that the effective strength of the 5th standard should not be less than 25. In the instant case, the strength was only 23 and therefore, the order relied on by the DPI was not applicable to the petitioner's case. It is seen that the petitioner has chosen not to file any reply affidavit, dealing with the above averment of the Government in its counter affidavit. In view of the above position, there is no merit in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, it is unnecessary to remit the matter on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 06.06.2008 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE WPC 3778/04 4 sta WPC 3778/04 5