IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 22415 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DON BOSCO EUROPEAN PRIMARY SCHOOL PADIYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT REP. BY ITS MANAGER (LOCAL) BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, SMT.P.R. REENA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION THRISSUR, PIN- 680 003. 2. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA ,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 680 121. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V. VIJULAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 22415 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REGISTER WITH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 02/08/2011, STANDARD II-A. EXT.P1(a): COPY OF THE REGISTER WITH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 02/08/2011, STANDARD II-B. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY MOHAMMED MUBARAK T.M., DATED 02/08/2010. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 12/08/2010. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/01/2011 FILED BY THE MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/03/2011 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT DATED 30/03/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/03/2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/06/2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE VISIT NOTE PREPARED BY THE VERIFYING OFFICER. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 22415 of 2011-B - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of September, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner is an aided L.P. School. The matter relates to the staff fixation for the academic year 2010-2011, of which the verification was conducted on 2.8.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that in Standard II there are two divisions. As on 2.8.2010 in Standard IIA there were a total number of 26 students present, out of the total strength of 31. In Standard IIB the students strength was 22 out of the total strength of 24. Exts.P1 and P1(a) are the copies of the relevant pages of the attendance register with the endorsement of the authorised officer who conducted the verification. 2. It is the further case of the petitioner that while entering the report of the total strength of students, the verifying authority committed a mistake as regards Standard IIA. In the place of verified strength of 26 (8 + 18), in the report it was wrongly mentioned as 25 (7 + 18). Ext.P2 is the copy of the said report. It is alleged that the mistake was not noticed by anybody. When the Headmaster noticed the same, the matter was taken up by the Manager before the Deputy Director of Education by Ext.P4. In the meanwhile, the Assistant Educational Officer, by Ext.P3 allowed staff wpc 22415/2011 2 fixation as that of the previous year. 3. The petitioner pursued the representation by filing subsequent representations also and directly approached the District Educational Officer. the District Educational Officer directed the Assistant Educational Officer to personally verify the students strength of the school including Standard IIA. Ext.P6 is the verification report. The same shows that as on 30.3.2011 there are 54 students in Standard II. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is seen from Exts.P1 and P1(a) that the total strength in Standard II was noted as 48 with seven absentees, which shows that there is a clear mistake in Ext.P2. Ext.P7 is the revised proceedings issued by the Assistant Educational Officer stating that the minimum strength of Standard II as per Ext.P2 is only 47 and for sanctioning two teaching post the minimum strength required is 48. Finally, by Ext.P8 the petitioner was informed that the mistake cannot be corrected. A reading of Ext.P8 shows that the rejection is only on the ground that the same is belated. Therefore, the crucial point raised by the petitioner has not been considered by the Deputy Director of Education. 4. As directed by this Court, a statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. It is clear from the statement also that one Shri Muhammed Mubarak who was working as H.S.A. English in GVHSS, wpc 22415/2011 3 Kadappuram, conducted the verification during the academic year 2010- 2011. It is stated that in the visit note the students strength of Standard IIA noted by him is 7 + 18 = 25 and for Standard IIB it is 15 + 7 = 22, thus making the total as 47 and Ext.R2(a) has been produced. In para 4 of the statement it is stated that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Educational Officer, Irinjalakuda for correction of verified attendance in the staff fixation order and the appeal is still pending. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the attendance register will show that under the signature of the very same authorised officer the correct figure has been written as 8 + 18, on 2.8.2010. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that if the same is verified after summoning the authorised officer, the issue can be resolved, but none of the authorities have made an attempt to that effect. 6. Learned Government Pleader submitted that based on the visit note the staff fixation is finalised and the remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal against the revised staff fixation order. This is a case where the petitioner has alleged commission of mistake on the part of the authorised officer. At any rate, without standing on technicalities, the issue could have been addressed by summoning the authorised officer and by verifying the attendance register and other documents maintained in the school and the wpc 22415/2011 4 office of the Asst. Educational Officer. In a matter like this, the consequence is of very serious nature as it may affect the next year's staff fixation also. An attempt should have been made in that regard also without dragging the petitioner to challenge the staff fixation order. By merely challenging the staff fixation order, the petitioner will not be able to get effective relief. The District Educational Officer will have to conduct due enquiry, since the appeal is pending before the said authority. He will summon the officer who conducted the visit on 2.8.2010 and conduct a personal hearing with notice to the Manager and Headmistress of the school and the relevant documents including the attendance register will be verified. Appropriate orders will be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since in Ext.P8 the view taken is that the appeal submitted before the Deputy Director of Education is not within time, the same will not stand in the way of the District Educational Officer going into the various questions raised. It is open to the District Educational Officer to verify all the concerned records. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/