IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 32068 of 2007(P) PETITIONER: THE CORPORATE MANAGER, EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE, THIRUVALLA-689101. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENTS : 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION(E)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF COVERING LETTER DATED 16.6.2004 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P1(a) COPY OF PROPOSALS FOR THE CHANGE OF ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE YEAR 2004-05 FROM THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.6.2004 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 14.7.2004 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 COPY OF APPEAL DATED 20.8.2004 ISSUED FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.1.2005 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED 29.1.2005 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.7.2005 FROM THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P8 COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED 9.8.2005 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 COPY OF ORDER DATED 2.5.2007 ISSUED FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 32068 OF 2007 P -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the Corporate Manager of the Corporate Educational Agency of the Catholic Diocese of Thiruvalla. Ext.P2 application was submitted by the petitioner to the District Educational Officer requesting that the post of Music Teacher, which existed in the School, may be abolished and a regular post of Sewing Teacher may be sanctioned. It was pointed out in Ext.P2 that as per the staff fixation order 2003-04, one post of Music Teacher and one post of Sewing Teacher (protected) were available. The protected teacher was working under clubbing arrangement. The Music Teacher retired from service on 31.3.2004. The request in Ext.P2 was to abolish the regular post of Music Teacher and to sanction a regular post of Sewing Teacher, after lifting the protection and clubbing arrangement. If that request was granted, the Sewing Teacher, who was on protection and clubbing arrangement, could continue in a regular post. There was no question of creation of a new regular post. 2. In the proceedings of the District Educational Officer in respect of the staff fixation for the year 2004-05, the post of Music Teacher was abolished due to retirement. The clubbing arrangement in respect of W.P.(C) NO.32068 OF 2007 :: 2 :: Sewing Teacher was directed to be continued. Aggrieved by the staff fixation order, the petitioner Manager filed appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, who dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P5 order dated 5.1.2005. The reason for rejection of the appeal is stated as follows: “For the conversion of protected post is to regular post, higher level verification is necessary. In this case, higher level verification was not conducted during 2004-05. Staff fixation 2004-05 has already been finalised before 30.11.04 as per the direction of the DPI. In the circumstances there is no scope for higher level verification.” 3. Challenging Ext.P5 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal to the Director of Public Instruction, who rejected the appeal as per Ext.P7 order dated 30.7.2005. The Director of Public Instruction also took the view that a higher level verification is necessary as a new post was sought to be created. The petitioner challenged Ext.P7 order in Revision before the Government. The Government disposed of the Revision as per Ext.P9 order. The same view as was taken by the District Educational Officer and the Director of Public Instruction was taken by the Government. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules does not apply to the case on hand, as a higher verification is necessary only in a case where W.P.(C) NO.32068 OF 2007 :: 3 :: additional divisions or additional staff are found necessary. In the present case, there is no prayer to create an additional division or to post an additional staff. What is requested for in Ext.P2 is to abolish an existing post and to lift the protection in respect of the Sewing Teacher and consequently to lift the clubbing arrangement. The counsel submits that for the said purpose, a further verification is not necessary under Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if at all a higher level verification with reference to records was necessary, the petitioner had no objection for the same and it should have been done by the authorities concerned. 5. Learned Government Pleader submits that it is to be ascertained whether the abolition of the post of Music Teacher was due to lack of sufficient strength of students. This is a matter to be verified, according to the learned Government Pleader. 6. The reasons stated in Ext.P9 order for rejection of the Revision appears to be erroneous on the basis of the materials furnished in the Writ Petition. If, as submitted by the learned Government Pleader, abolition of the post of Music Teacher was due to lack of sufficient strength of students, that is a matter to be verified. The relevant facts were not brought to the notice of the Government at the time of disposal W.P.(C) NO.32068 OF 2007 :: 4 :: of Ext.P9 Revision. If verification with reference to the records is necessary, that also could be done at the appropriate level. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I quash Ext.P9 and direct the Government to consider the matter afresh after taking into account the contentions raised by the petitioner and also after ensuring availability of the relevant records and necessary facts and details. If it is found by the first respondent that a further verification with reference to records is necessary, appropriate directions could be issued for the same and the Revision can be disposed of after getting the necessary facts and figures. The first respondent shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of four months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and any other affected party. Petitioner shall produce copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/