IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 27206 of 2009(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.K.SUDHAKARAN, HEADMASTER, DEVI VILASOM A.U.P.SCHOOL, ARIYALLOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SARADHA NIVAS, BEYPORE P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MANAGER, DEVI VILASOM A.U.P SCHOOL, ARIYALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PARAPPANANGADI. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. R2 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. SANDESH RAJA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.27206/2009-U: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.2. DTD. 24/05/2006. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.3. DTD. 31/05/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.2. DTD. 24/11/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. DTD. 11/12/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM DTD. 25/02/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.3. DTD 02/01/2007. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOZHIKODE DTD. 06/10/2008. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 04/07/2008. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C) 35632/08 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DT. 03/12/2008. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.3. NO.D.DIS/RA(3)/5009/09/DPI DTD. 18/04/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 27206 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Headmaster of Devi Vilasam AUP School, Ariyallur which is an aided school. On the ground that the petitioner is responsible for bogus admission in the school, Ext.P10 order has been passed directing recovery of loss caused to the Government, on account of the bogus admission allegedly made by the petitioner. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records relating to Ext.10 and to quash the Original of the same. b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ order or direction, calling for the records relating to Exts.P2, P3, P5, P7 and P8 and quash originals of the same. c) Issue a writ of mandamus, commanding the Respondents 2 and 3 to hold that the Petitioner is not the person liable to pay the amount of Rs.2,09,608/- as shown in the Revenue Recovery notices since he is not the sanctioning authority of the salary of teachers. d) to grant such other reliefs prayed for from time to time including cost of these proceedings.” W.P.(C)No. 27206 of 2009 -2- 2. On an exactly identical set of facts a Division Bench of this court, in W.A. No.1288/2007, has passed the following judgment: “The writ petitioner is the appellant. The brief facts of the case are the following: The appellant is the Headmistress of an Upper Primary School managed by the 4th respondent. In her school for the year 2004-2005, 27 posts were sanctioned as per Ext.P1 staff fixation order. There were 20 class divisions also. Later, on the basis of the inspection of the Super Check Cell, bogus admissions were found and as per the direction of the said Cell 81 students were removed from the School. The same resulted in reduction of two teaching posts. The proceeding of the DPI, reducing the number of divisions from 20 to 18, is Ext.P2. In Ext.P2 there is an observation that the loss suffered by the exchequer, by reason of the additional sanction of two posts, can be recovered from the Headmistress. Feeling aggrieved by that, the petitioner moved the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the same and hence this appeal. 2. No provision has been brought to our notice, which enables the DPI while passing an order in the nature of Ext.P2 to order recovery from the Headmistress, the loss suffered by sanction of additional class divisions, given based on bogus admissions of students. It may be permissible to recover loss from the Headmistress as part of the disciplinary proceedings. So, no recovery shall be made form the appellant solely based on Ext.P2. We clarify this legal position and dispose of the Writ Appeal. If, in the disciplinary action, any recovery is ordered the appellant will be free to resit it raising all the contentions available to her under law”. 3. In view of the Division Bench decision on identical facts, I am satisfied that the petitioner in this writ petition is also liable to be disposed of in terms of the said judgment. Accordingly the impugned orders are quashed and the writ W.P.(C)No. 27206 of 2009 -3- petition is disposed of with a direction that if in the disciplinary action, any recovery is ordered the appellant is free to resist it raising all the contentions available to him under law. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/