IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27371 of 2010(V) PETITIONER: SATHYASEELAN PILLAI, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, PEON, ESWARA VILASOM HIGH SCHOOL, NILESWARAM P.O. NEDUVATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001. 2. THE MANAGER, ESWARA VILASOM HIGH SCHOOL & ESWARA VILASAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NILESWARAM P.O., NEDUVATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR(EDUCATION) KOLLAM - 691001. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY R1 AND R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO.27532 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). NOS.27371 & 27532 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT W.P.(C) No.27371 of 2010 is filed by the Peon and W.P.(C) No.27532 of 2010 is filed by the Manager of Eswara Vilasom High School, Neduvathoor, Kollam District. 2. This is not the first time that the parties are approaching this Court. The name of the School is Eswara Vilasom High School. The former Manager of the School was Sathyapalan. Sathyapalan sold the School to Suresh Kumar, the present Manager. The Peon, Sathyaseelan Pillai, was kept under suspension by the Manager. The District Educational Officer found in the order dated 19.8.2010 that there was no valid ground for suspension. That order is challenged by the Manager in W.P.(C) No.27532 of 2010. Before passing the order of suspension, the Manager had issued a memo dated 7.7.2010 (Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.27532 of 2010) and after receiving the reply from Sathyaseelan Pillai, the Manager issued a letter dated 27.7.2010 (Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.27532 of 2010). The Manager passed the order of suspension on 16.8.2010 (Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) NOS.27371 & 27532 OF 2010 :: 2 :: W.P.(C) No.27532 of 2010). That order was found to be without any valid ground by the District Educational Officer in his order dated 19.8.2010 (Ext.P9 in W.P.(C) No.27532 of 2010 and W.P.(C) No.27371 of 2010). In the Writ Petition filed by Sathyaseelan Pillai, he challenges the memo and letter issued by the Manager and the order of suspension issued against him. Sathyaseelan Pillai has also prayed for some other reliefs, which will be dealt with later in this judgment. 3. It is alleged by Sathyaseelan Pillai that after the present Manager became the Manager, there arose disputes between the Manager and the Headmaster. It is alleged that the present Manager was not in good terms with the former Manager. The allegation against the Peon is that he compelled the students to carry firewood unloaded for the purpose of preparing noon meals. It is also alleged against the Peon that he entered into the class room and abused a teacher by name Jayakumary, in the presence of students. It is also alleged that when students refused to carry firewood, some of them were manhandled by the Peon. It would appear that about seventy students filed a petition dated 6.7.2010 before the District Educational Officer alleging that they were W.P.(C) NOS.27371 & 27532 OF 2010 :: 3 :: manhandled and abused by the Peon. Jayakumary, the Teacher, had also made a complaint against the Peon before the Manager. These incidents led to the suspension of the Peon. 4. Before passing the order of suspension, more than 25 teachers including the Headmaster, the full time menial and a clerk of the School filed W.P.(C) No.5239 of 2009, making allegations against the Manager and praying that the School is liable to be taken over by the Government. W.P.(C) No.5239 of 2009 was disposed of by the judgment dated 26.3.2009. This Court directed the Government to enquire into the complaint raised by the petitioners in that Writ Petition and to take appropriate action after hearing all the parties. During hearing of that Writ Petition, an allegation was made by the Manager that the signatures of some of the teachers in the Writ Petition were not genuine and that those teachers had not joined the other petitioners to file the Writ Petition. This Court directed the Government to look into that matter also. 5. Pursuant to the direction in W.P.(C) No.5239 of 2009, the Government passed G.O.(Rt) No.2701/2009/G.Edn. dated 8.7.2009 (Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.27371 of 2010) recording the undertaking W.P.(C) NOS.27371 & 27532 OF 2010 :: 4 :: made by the Headmaster and the Manager that they would take earnest steps to solve all the problems prevailing in the School. It was also held in the Government Order that it was not necessary to take over the management of the School. The Director of Public Instructions and the Deputy Director of Education were also directed by the Government to ensure that the School is run properly. 6. Even after the Government Order was issued, the disputes continued. According to the Manager and Jayakumary, the Headmaster and a section of teachers are revolting against the Manager. According to the Headmaster, Teachers and the Peon, the Manager who was an abkari contractor, is employing goondas in the School to see that nobody raises any voice against him. The teachers alleged that the Manager had misbehaved towards lady teachers and lady clerk. It is also alleged that several teachers were manhandled and they were compelled to stand in the room of the Manager after removing shirt. Several students had to approach the educational authorities. According to the Manager, the signatures of the students were stealthily obtained by the Peon. The Headmaster, the Peon and Teachers alleged that the Manager had obtained signed blank papers from students. That the atmosphere in the W.P.(C) NOS.27371 & 27532 OF 2010 :: 5 :: School is not at all congenial is quite evident from the averments made in the Writ Petitions and the documents produced along with the same. I am sure that the Manager and the Headmaster have not kept their words and promises and the undertaking made before the Government at the time when the order dated 8.7.2009 was passed. It is also not known whether the Director of Public Instructions and the Deputy Director of Education are making constant vigil to ensure proper administration and management of the School. 7. So long as the Manager, Teachers and non-teaching staff are not prepared to create a peaceful atmosphere in the School, any order in the Writ Petitions would not solve the problems. Then the question is whether the Writ Petitions are liable to be entertained. I shall deal with the reliefs in the Writ Petitions herein below. 8. As stated earlier, W.P.(C) No.27532 of 2010 is filed by the Manager challenging the order dated 19.8.2010 passed by the District Educational Officer (Ext.P9). The Manager is entitled to file a revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, challenging the order of the District Educational Officer. W.P.(C) NOS.27371 & 27532 OF 2010 :: 6 :: 9. Sri.John Joseph Vettikad, learned counsel appearing for the Manager, relied on the decision in Sreedharan v. State of Kerala and others (1977 KLT 222) and contended that the District Educational Officer was not justified in conducting a detailed enquiry, in examining witnesses and in arriving at a definite finding while passing the order. He submitted that the order passed by the District Educational Officer is completely without jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have carefully perused the Division Bench judgment in Sreedharan v. State of Kerala and others (1977 KLT 222). That was a case where based on enquiry, the educational officer virtually found on all the allegations against the teacher, which made it impossible for the teacher to take any defence in future before an order under Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules is passed. Such a situation does not arise here. In the order passed by the District Educational Officer, he has only arrived at the conclusion that there was no valid ground for suspending the Peon. The learned counsel for the Manager submitted that after holding that there was no valid ground for suspension, the District Educational Officer also observed that a warning should be given to the Peon not to indulge in similar activities. According to the W.P.(C) NOS.27371 & 27532 OF 2010 :: 7 :: counsel, this would indicate that the District Educational Officer has found that the Peon had indulged in some offending acts. This finding, according to the counsel, should not result in the finding that there is no valid ground to suspend the Teacher. According to the counsel, the order passed by the District Educational Officer contains contradictory and irreconcilable findings. I am of the view that since the Manager has an effective alternate remedy, he would be entitled to raise all these contentions in the Revision which he may file under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. Therefore, I do not think it necessary to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and entertain the Writ Petition challenging an order against which there is an effective alternate remedy. W.P. (C) No.27532 of 2010 is accordingly dismissed. 10. In W.P.(C) No.27371 of 2010, Sathyaseelan Pillai, the Peon, had prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) to issue a writ of certiorari or other writ or order calling for the records leading upto Ext.P10 and quash Exts.P4, P6 and P8. W.P.(C) NOS.27371 & 27532 OF 2010 :: 8 :: (ii) to issue a declaration that the petitioner was not liable to be suspended from service on the basis of the allegation in Ext.P4 and P6 and also to declare that the Manager is bound to implement Ext.P9 order by admitting the petitioner to duty. (iii) to direct the respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 to ensure that the petitioner is admitted to duty in the School and to pay his salary w.e.f. 16.8.2010 onwards with 12% interest and also to initiate action against the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the KER for having ill-treat the petitioner. (iv) to issue such other further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 11. By the order dated 19.8.2010 passed by the District Educational Officer (Ext.P9), it was found that there was no valid ground for suspending the Peon. Therefore, there is no meaning in entertaining the Writ Petition for quashing the memo, the letter and the order of suspension. The order of suspension having been cancelled by the District Educational Officer and the petitioner having succeeded to that extent, he is not entitled to challenge Exts.P4, P6 and P8. Therefore, relief (i) cannot be entertained. On the same W.P.(C) NOS.27371 & 27532 OF 2010 :: 9 :: ground, the first part of relief (ii) also cannot be granted. As far as the second part of relief (ii) is concerned, nobody can say that the Manager is not bound to implement Ext.P9 order so long as Ext.P9 order is not stayed. Relief (iii) is to ensure that Ext.P9 order is implemented and the petitioner (Peon ) gets salary. 12. Sub Rule (8) of Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules reads as follows: “(8) Where the orders of suspension is made by the manager he shall on the same day report the matter together with reasons for the suspension to the Educational Officer and were the suspension is in respect of Headmaster of Secondary school and Training school such reports shall be sent to the Deputy Director (Education) also in addition to the Educational Officer. The Deputy Director (Education) if the suspension is in respect of Headmaster of a Secondary school or Training School and the Educational Officer in other cases shall thereupon make a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension. If on such investigations the authority is satisfied that there was no valid ground for the suspension he may direct the manager to reinstate the teacher with effect from the date of suspension and thereupon the teacher shall forthwith be reinstated by the manager. If the teacher is W.P.(C) NOS.27371 & 27532 OF 2010 :: 10 :: not actually reinstated the teacher shall be deemed to have been on duty. It shall then be open to the Department to disburse the pay and allowances to the teacher as if he were not suspended and recover the amount so disbursed from the manager. If on such investigation it is found that there are valid grounds for such suspension, permission may be given to the manager to place the teacher under suspension beyond 15 days if necessary. The authority mentioned above shall pass orders permitting the suspension or otherwise within said 15 days.” Sub-Rule (8) clearly provides that it is open to the Department to disburse the pay and allowances and recover the same from the Manager. The provisions of Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A applies to non-teaching staff as well, in view of Rule 7 of Chapter XXIV B of the Kerala Education Rules. The petitioner has not approached the Government for that relief. He is free to do so. Without approaching the Government, I do not think that the petitioner can straightaway approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and pray for the relief as made in relief (iii). Leaving open the right of Sathyaseelan Pillai, the Peon, to move appropriate authority in this regard, the second part of relief (ii) as well as relief No.(iii) are declined. W.P.(C) NOS.27371 & 27532 OF 2010 :: 11 :: 13. The allegation of Sathyaseelan Pillai is that he is physically prevented from entering into the School by the Manager by appointing a goonda in front of the School. This is denied by the Manager. It is not necessary to decide that question in this Writ Petition, as it involves disputed questions of fact. In the order dated 8.7.2009 passed by the Government, the Director of Public Instructions as well as the Deputy Director of Education were directed to ensure that the School is run properly and that the administration is also done properly. It is for the educational authorities to look into the grievance of Sathyaseelan Pillai in this regard. He has not approached the said authorities. Leaving open that right of Sathyaseelan Pillai, W.P.(C) No.27371 of 2010 is dismissed. With the aforesaid observations, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/