IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 5805 of 2008(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NAUSHAD M.N., S/O.SAIDALAVI, MAMPILLY NHJALIL HOUSE, THRITHALA P.O., PIN 679 534, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (ARABIC TEACHER, C.E.U.P SCHOOL, PARADUR). BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATTAMBI P.O., PIN 679 303, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE HEADMASTER, C.E.U.P. SCHOOL, PARUDUR P.O., PIN 679 303, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.T. MOHAMOOD, R2 BY ADV. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN, ADV. SRI.P.T.DINESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.5805/2008-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO. C/7500/07 DTD 14/11/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 28/11/2007 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 17/01/2008 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11/1/2008 OF THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO. D. DIS C/7761/07 DTD. 03/05/2008 OF THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2.1: COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO. C/4516/07 DTD. 25/07/2007 BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER. EXT.R2.2: COPY OF THE DIRECTION AND REPORT OF THE SUPER CHECK OFFICER, SUPER CHECK CELL, MALABAR REGION, KOZHIKODE DTD. 26/09/2007. EXT.R2.3: COPY OF THE LIST OF 97 STUDENTS REMOVED FROM THE ROLL OF C.E.U.P. SCHOOL PARUDUR. EXT. R2.4: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 22/11/2007 BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATTAMBI, REGARDING THE SCHOOL VISIT. EXT.R2.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 28/11/2007 BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE FORWARDING NOTE. EXT.R2.5.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/11/2007 FOR SPECIFIC ORDER SUBMITTED TO THE R.1. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5805/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as an Arabic Teacher in a school, of which the 2nd respondent is the Headmaster. The writ petition was filed, complaining that he has not been paid salary since July, 2007. Although, there was a post available and he was continuing in the school based on Ext.P1 staff fixation order, subsequently Ext.P5 revived staff fixation order was issued, by which it was ordered that the petitioner will be retrenched. There upon the writ petition was amended by incorporating a challenge against Ext.P5 as well. 2. The pleadings would show that since the issue of Ext.P1 there has been verification of strength on inspection by the Super Check Cell and there has been reduction of 97 WP(c).No.5805/2008 2 students who were removed from the rolls on the ground of long absence. Counsel for the petitioner mainly contends about the violation of Rule 6 and 15 of Chapter XXIII KER and he also relied on the judgment of this court in Ravindranatha Pillai v. Director, Public Instruction (1996(2) KLT 864). 3. Among the contentions, all that is necessary to be addressed in this writ petition is the acceptability or otherwise of the allegation of violation of Rule 15 of Chapter XXIII KER, in as much as Ext.P5 was issued without notice to the affected parties. The Government Pleader referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Principal, where the Principal has confessed the removal of 97 students for long absence, argued that, if that be so, the case will come within the ambit of Rule 15 of Chapter XXIII KER. On this basis he submitted that Ext.P15 deserves to be upheld. 4. However, it is to be noticed that Rule 15 referred to above enables the Educational Authorities, to revise the staff strength, if they are satisfied for valid and specific reasons to be recorded in writing that the fixation of staff WP(c).No.5805/2008 3 strength was obtained by bogus admission or attendance or by fraud or misrepresentation and the like reasons. Therefore, though it is open to the educational authorities to revise the staff strength, the reasons which are mentioned in Rule 15 should be available for exercising that power and that reasons should be reflected in the order itself. Going by the proviso of the rule, notice to the parties who are likely to be affected by any such re-fixation is also mandatory. In my view, both for want of reasons in Ext.P5 and also for not issuing notice to the persons like the petitioner who are affected by such re-fixation, Ext.P5 cannot be sustained. Therefore Ext.P5 to the extent it affects the petitioner will stand set aside but however this will not stand in the way of the Educational Officer issuing notice to the petitioner and exercising its power under Rule 15 of the chapter XXIII KER. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC vi JUDGE WP(c).No.5805/2008 4