T.R. Nair and another vs The Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction and two others

V. Balakrishna Eeradi, J.—The petitioner is the Manager of an aided upper primary school and the 2nd petitioner is a teacher working in the said school. For the academic year 1969-70 the Assistant Educational Officer, Wadakkancherry effected the staff strength of the school as per his proceedings evidenced by Ex. P-4 dated 15-7-1969 sanctioning 10 divisions in all. Nearly 2 months thereafter, the District Educational Officer, Chavakkad (2nd respondent) purported to review the staff fixation made by the Assistant Educational Officer and reduced the total number of divisions sanctioned for the school from 10 to 9 on the ground that the accommodation provided for the additional division was not adequate. By the same proceeding the 2nd respondent also cancelled as a consequential measure one post of teacher which had been sanctioned for the school by the Assistant Educational Officer. Ex. P-5 produced along with the writ petition is an extract of the relevant portion of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent reviewing the staff fixation. The 2nd petitioner in this writ petition is directly affected by Ex. P-5 because in case the said order is to be implemented, she will have to be ousted from service. The 1st petitioner (Manager) preferred an appeal petition before the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Ernakulam (1st respondent) challenging the validity and correctness of the action taken by the District Educational Officer. Though, according to the 1st petitioner, he has not received any communication from the 1st respondent intimating him about the disposal of the said appeal, it is stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent that the appeal petition was rejected by the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction after examining the case in all its aspects. The petitioners have challenged Ex. P-5 on the ground that the 2nd respondent acted completely without jurisdiction in proceeding to modify the staff fixation effected by the Assistant Educational Officer and to cancel the sanction granted by the said Educational Officer in respect of one post of upper primary school assistant. The order Ex. P-5 is sought to be supported on the side of the respondent only by relying on the provision contained in Rule 12-B of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules as it stood at the relevant time. It is contended on the basis of the said provision that the District Educational Officer was vested with jurisdiction to review the staff fixation order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer in respect of an upper primary school. This Court had occasion to consider the scope of this provision in O.P. No. 4432 of 1968 and it has been held by my learned brother Mathew, J. that the District Educational Officer has no power under the said rule to pass any order implementing his decision on the review and that on the other hand his only power is "to forward his review to the Regional Deputy Director and the Director of Public Instruction". It has also been pointed out in the said judgment that it would be anomalous if it should be held that the District Educational Officer is competent to pass an order on review without giving any notice to the parties while the Director of Public Instruction if he wants to revise the order fixing the strength of staff must hear the parties before passing such an order. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge. In my opinion the expression "review" used in Rule 12-B (2) means only to examine or scrutinise and what is contemplated by the said rule is that the District Educational Officer should conduct a scrutiny of the staff fixation orders passed by the Assistant Educational Officers and forward his remarks to the Regional Deputy Director and Director of Public Instruction. This is probably intended as a step for assisting the Director to exercise the powers of suo motu revision conferred on him under Rule 12-A by bringing to his notice any instances of irregular fixation of staff strength made by the Assistant Educational Officers which came to the notice of the District Educational Officer in the course of his review or scrutiny. It is therefore clear that under the scheme of the Rules as can be gathered from the provisions contained in Rule 12-A and 12-B of Chapter XXIII an operative order modifying the staff fixation already effected by the Assistant Educational Officer can be passed only by the Director of Public Instruction or by the Regional Deputy Director, as the case may be, by the processes of review and suo motu revision. The District Educational Officer is not vested with the power to pass such an order. In the light of the above discussion it has to follow that the proceedings of the District Educational Officer evidenced by Ex. P-5 and any consequential steps that may have been taken pursuant thereto by the Assistant Educational Officer for cancelling the sanction already granted for the additional 10th post of teacher in the first petitioner''s school for the academic year 1969-70 are without jurisdiction and hence to be quashed.

The original petition is therefore allowed to the extent of quashing Ex. P-5 and any consequential action that might have been already taken pursuant thereto. It will stand dismissed in so far as the petitioners have sought to challenge the staff fixation proceedings for the year 1968-69 wherein no such question of interpretation of Rule 12-B arises. The parties will bear their respective costs.