IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 10252 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.JANAKY AMMA, MANAGER, SANTHA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, AVANOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI SMT.M.SINDHU THANKAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DISTRICT OFFICE OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL. 4 IS IMPLEADED 4. V.G.MOHANAN, S/O. VADASSERY GOVINDAN, PRESIDENT, THE PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION SANTHA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, AVANOOR, THRISSUR. ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 4.7.08 IN IA. 8305/08. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADE MR.K.RAMESH FOR R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.SEBASTIAN DAVIS FOR R3 MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR ADDL.R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.10252/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DT. 27.6.07. P1(a):- COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DT. 27.6.07. P2:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A(10) FILED NO.2007/34799/8 DT. 27.6.07 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR TO THE SECRETARY, AVANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. P3:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A1-4050/07 DT. 31.7.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 1.8.07. P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE PRINCIPAL TO THE MEDICAL OFFICER IN CHARGE, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU DT. 30.8.07. P6:- COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE B5-19104/07 DT. 29.9.07 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P7:- COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 9.10.07 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 8.10.07 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL AND THE HEADMISTRESS OF THE SCHOOL TO THE PETITIONER. P9:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B6-176/2008 DT. 8.2.08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P10:- COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P11:- COPY OF THE COMMUNCIATION NO.B5/19104/07 DT. 4.3.08 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P12:- COPY OF THE REPLY SUMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 14.3.08. P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/19104/07 DT. 18.3.08 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No.10252/2008-U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, the former Manager of Santha Higher Secondary School, Avanoor, Thrissur is aggrieved by Ext.P13 order by which the Deputy Director of Education, invoking Rule 7(i) of Chapter III of K.E.R declared that the petitioner is disqualified to continue as Manager of the School. The main reasons stated in the order are that the petitioner wilfully disobeyed the directions of the Department and that of the Human Rights Commission, and did not participate in the hearing conducted by him. 2. It appears that there were complaints from Parents Teachers Association regarding the inadequate facilities in the school as well as the requirement to improve some of the facilities, and appointment in two vacancies which arose due to leave without allowance availed by two teachers. The said complaint has been communicated to the Manager by the Principal as per Ext.R4(a). Mainly, it is pointed out that there is no proper drainage facility in the school compound which may result in spreading of deceases etc.. It is also complained that the construction of the new building has not been completed and the petitioner is not taking any effective steps to complete the same. Ext.P2 is a communication issued by W.P.(C). No.10252/2008 -:2:- the District Collector, Thrissur to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat regarding the permission for cutting trees etc. which was based on a petition submitted by the petitioner. Ext.P3 shows that the District Educational Officer as per notice dated 31/07/2007 directed the Manager to take steps to provide proper drainage facilities in the school and to remove waste water. The petitioner by Ext.P4 informed the District Educational Officer about the steps to be taken in the matter. It appears that the petitioner was also served with Ext.P6 notice by the Deputy Director of Education to which, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply. The petitioner has got a case that by Ext.P10, reply was given to the D.E.O when notices were issued later alleging non compliance of the directions. 3. It is averred in the writ petition that the grounds, if any, to disqualify the Manager as provided under Rule 7 of Chapter III, K.E.R are not present. Apart from that, the reasons stated in Ext.P13 are so meagre, that they are not sufficient to disqualify the Manager. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Director of Education, the circumstances leading to the disputes have been stated in detail. Mainly it is contended that the petitioner failed to provide preliminary facilities in the school inspite of repeated requests given from W.P.(C). No.10252/2008 -:3:- various quarters, including the directions issued from the Human Rights Commission. It is clear from paragraph (8) of the counter affidavit that the daughter of the petitioner, Smt.A.Santhakumari was approved as Manager with effect from 01/07/2008 and the second respondent made a visit to the school on 05/09/2008 and found that the new Manager has taken adequate steps to resolve the alleged problems prevailed in the school which are explained in paragraph (8) itself. 5. The question is whether the circumstances were so grave that it requires disqualification of the Manager. By no stretch of imagination it can be contended that the negligence or any delay in taking effective steps to fulfil repairs etc. will result in disqualification of the Manager. The petitioner had been taking various steps in the matter and the complaints were being redressed also. 6. Going by Rule 7 of Chapter III K.E.R, various circumstances have been pointed out to disqualify a Manager. Therefore, it is upto the competent authority while passing an order to satisfy himself about the elements required, since, essentially, it is a penal provision. Therefore, unless it is proved by cogent evidence that the elements of disqualification like mismanagement, malpractice, corruption or maladministration, gross W.P.(C). No.10252/2008 -:4:- negligence of duty or disobedience etc. are there, an order to disqualify a Manager cannot be passed. The disqualification of the Manager cannot be done in a routine manner. No detailed reasons have been stated in Ext.P13 to support the action. In that view of the matter, Ext.P13 cannot at all be sustained. Therefore, the same is quashed. 7. But in the light of the subsequent developments, now that the entire repairs have been effected and all the directions have been complied with and the daughter of the petitioner has been appointed as the Manager, no further steps are required to be taken by the Departmental authorities also with regard to the complaints which were raised earlier. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the P.T.A that many of their demands have been met already. The writ petition is allowed as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE ms