IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13638 of 2011(D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- KADEEJA KUTTY, WIFE OF MAMMUKUTTY, AGED 54 YEARS, MANAGER, POONATH NELLISSERY A.U.P.SCHOOL, POONATH, PERAMBRA EDUCATIONAL SUB DISTRICT (RESIDING AT ROSE GARDEN, FAROOK COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT). BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 573. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 525. 4. SRI.K.PRADEEP KUMAR,ASSISTANT TEACHER (UNDER SUSPENSION), POONATH NELLISSERY A.U.P.SCHOOL, POONATH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 614. 5. SRI.A.J.CHERIAN, HEADMASTER, POONATH NELLISSERY A.U.P. SCHOOL, POONATH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.RANI DIOTHIMA R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN R5 BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.NAVAS SRI.P.A.SHAJI SAMAD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO.13638/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.03/2011 OF THE MANAGER. P1(a):COPY OF THE ORDER NO.03/2011 OF THE MANAGER P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.146/11/B/K.DIS. OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PERAMBRA. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.03/2011 OF THE MANAGER P4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.03/2011 OF THE MANAGER P5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B-146/2011 OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PERAMBRA. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B-146/2011 OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER. P7: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT P7(a):COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH THE REVISION PETITION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.13638 of 2011-D - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT The Manager of an aided school is the petitioner herein. The present dispute arose when the order of suspension issued by the Manager, suspending the fourth respondent, an Assistant Teacher of the school, was interfered with by the Assistant Educational Officer, the third respondent herein. 2. After the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the Government as per Ext.P7 along with a petition for staying the impugned orders herein. 3. Ext.P1 is the order of suspension and the period of suspension was 15 days. The Manager, by Ext.P1(a) required the Asst. Educational Officer to conduct a preliminary investigation and to extend the suspension beyond the period of 15 days. The continuance of the suspension was refused by the Asst. Educational Officer as per Ext.P2, according to the petitioner, because of certain political pressure. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Educational Officer as per Ext.P3 and while that was pending, the Asst. Educational Officer issued a further direction to the Manager to disburse the salary and allowances of the fourth respondent and wpc 13638/2011 2 that the same will be recovered from the Manager as a liability. By Ext.P6, the Asst. Educational Officer further directed the fifth respondent who is the Headmaster of the school, to be proceeded with for not implementing his orders. Therefore, Exts.P2, P5 and P6 are under challenge in this writ petition and by an interim order dated 17.5.2011 this Court granted a stay. 4. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri V.A. Muhammed, Shri P.C. Sasidharan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, Shri C.A. Navas, learned counsel for the fifth respondent and learned Govt. Pleader. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the Government may be directed to take a decision on Ext.P7 revision petition within a time frame and in the meanwhile, the prayer for grant of interim order also may be directed to be considered by the Government. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent opposed the same. It is pointed out that the revision petition is not filed within a reasonable time. Apart from that, my attention was invited to Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. and its legal effect. It is pointed out that going by the same, once the Asst. Educational Officer refused to grant permission for continuance of suspension, the fourth respondent will be deemed to be in service. Herein, the Manager has refused to reinstate him. In such circumstances, it is open to the department wpc 13638/2011 3 to disburse pay and allowances to the teacher and to recover it from the Manager. It is submitted that the District Educational Officer was not the appellate authority and therefore Ext.P3 was not at all maintainable. Therefore, it is pointed out that the fourth respondent is entitled to be paid salary from the date of Ext.P2 order. 7. Going by Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R., the Educational Officer concerned will have to conduct a preliminary investigation and if the order of suspension is found to be without any ground, he can direct the Manager to reinstate the teacher and if the teacher is not actually reinstated, he shall be deemed to have been on duty. It is provided therein further that it shall 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. 8. Herein, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is challenging the legality of Ext.P2 order itself, refusing to extend the suspension and that the fourth respondent was suspended on the basis of serious allegations which were not considered by the Asst. Educational Officer properly. Learned counsel appearing for the Headmaster also supported the above plea. It is pointed out that the petitioner was awaiting orders from the District Educational Officer and wpc 13638/2011 4 that is why the Headmaster was instructed not to disburse salary to the petitioner. It is further pointed out that the remedy under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. is available to the petitioner to approach the Government by filing a revision petition. 9. Evidently, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned orders and this Court passed an interim order which is in force. The petitioner has filed a revision petition before the Government as Ext.P7 and has sought for an interim order in that revision also. Whether the revision itself is maintainable on any of the grounds raised by the fourth respondent, is a matter for the Government to consider. The revision petition has not yet been disposed of. Therefore, this Court need not go into the contention of the fourth respondent regarding maintainability at this stage. 10. The interim order passed by this Court is effective from 17.5.2011. Going by Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R., if the teacher is not reinstated, he will be deemed to be on duty and will be entitled for payment of salary. Therefore, as an interim measure, the salary and allowances of the fourth respondent till the date of the interim order passed by this Court, can be disbursed, which will be purely subject to the decision of the Government in the revision petition. It is open to the Government to wpc 13638/2011 5 consider all aspects after hearing various parties. 11. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: There will be a direction to the Government to take a decision on Ext.P7 revision petition after hearing the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, the application for stay produced as Ext.P7 (a), will be considered by the Government after notice to the parties and appropriate orders will be passed within a period of two months. Till then, the interim order passed by this Court will continue. The salary and allowances of the fourth respondent for the period from the date of Ext.P2 till the date of the interim order, viz. 17.5.2011, will be disbursed and the same will be subject to the final orders to be passed by the Government in the revision petition. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. The petitioner will forward a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment to the first respondent for compliance. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/