Honey Das v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 20232 OF 2015** ## **PETITIONER:** HONEY DAS, AGED 37 YEARS WIFE OF T.RAJAN, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, KRKPM BOYS HIGH SCHOOL KADAMBANAD, PATHANAMTHITTA -691 552. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THEVALLY KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 009 4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 506 5 THE HEADMISTRESS KRKPM BOYS HIGH SCHOOL KADAMBANAD, PATHANAMTHITTA- 691 552. SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 20232 OF 2015 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is working as an Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) in the “KRKPM Boys High School”, Pathanamthitta, calls into question, through this writ petition, Exts.P3 and P5 orders of the District Educational Officer (DEO), Kottarakkara and Government respectively, mulcting her with a liability of an amount of Rs.72,811/- and thus directing her to pay the same in instalments. 2. According to the petitioner, while she was working in the School, a Super Check Cell Team from the office of the Director of General Education (DGE), made an inspection to find that certain admissions of students, shown in the register of the School, was bogus and that thus action was taken against the Headmistress against it. The petitioner says that the Headmistress, thereafter, approached this Court and obtained Ext.P1 judgment in W.P.(C) No.4552/2009, wherein, the allegations against her were found to be incorrect by this Court and her non-liability certificate directed to be issued. 3. The petitioner alleges that, thereupon, the educational Authority suddenly turned their attention to five other teachers, WP(C) NO. 20232 OF 2015 3 including herself, finally finding that the salary drawn by them in the year 2005-06, when they had concededly worked, be refunded and that Exts.P3 and P5 orders have been issued calling upon her to pay certain amounts in instalments. 4. The petitioner asserts that she was not responsible for any “bogus admissions” and that in any event of the matter, this Court has already held in **Kishore v. State of Kerala** [2019 (4) KLT 153] that a teacher like her cannot be held responsible for any such admissions. She thus prays that this writ petition be allowed and Exts.P3 and P5 be set aside. 5. I have heard Sri.M.Sajjad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.M.Manoj, learned Senior Government Pleader. 6. The materials on record would clearly show that the petitioner was appointed as an UPSA with effect from 01.07.2004 and that 13 posts of UPSTs were sanctioned in the School for the academic year 2005-06. However, a Super Check Cell visited the School and made a verification of the students strength between 28.11.2005 and 01.02.2006 and it is alleged that certain admissions were found to be bogus. This led to the number of divisions in the High School section and UP section to WP(C) NO. 20232 OF 2015 4 be reduced from 18 to 15 and 13 to 10 respectively, thereby, rendering 5 teachers to be in excess. The 5[th] of such teacher is the petitioner herein. 7. It transpires that, consequent to the afore, the Staff Fixation Order of the School was revised for the year 2005-06 and directions were issued by the competent Educational Authorities to the teachers, including the petitioner, to refund the alleged excess salary drawn by them for the period in question. However, what is pertinent in this case is that the allegation of bogus admission was first impelled against the Headmistress and her retiral benefits were held up. However, when she approached this Court, Ext.P1 judgment was delivered, completely exonerating her and directing the Authorities to issue her the eligible non-liability certificate. Interestingly, thereafter, without assigning any specific reason, the DEO appears to have issued Ext.P3 proceedings suddenly turning on to the five teachers and saying that they are liable to refund the salary drawn by them, but without holding them responsible for the bogus admissions. 8. It is crucial from Ext.P3 that there is not even a whisper against the petitioner herein that she was responsible for the 5 WP(C) NO. 20232 OF 2015 alleged “bogus admissions” or that any enquiry had been initiated or concluded against her with respect to such allegations. In spite of it, the DEO has found that an amount of Rs.72,811/- is liable to be refunded by the petitioner herein, being the salary drawn by her for the period between 15.07.2005 and 14.07.2006, consequent to the revision of Staff Fixation for the year 2005-06. 9. Sri.P.M.Manoj, the learned Senior Government Pleader defended Exts.P3 and P5 orders and submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent averring the reasons as to why the said amount in question was directed to be obtained from the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 10. When I examine the counter affidavit of the second respondent, apart from saying that there was a reduction of divisions in the High School section and Upper Primary section of the School in question, there is not even a whisper of averment that the petitioner or any other teacher was responsible for the alleged “bogus admissions”. The averments in the counter affidavit is to the effect that, because there was a revision in Staff Fixation, the petitioner is liable to repay the WP(C) NO. 20232 OF 2015 6 amounts drawn by her for the period in question, though, as I have already said above, there is not as much as even a murmur that she is responsible for the alleged “bogus admissions”, which led to such fall in divisions. 11. In this context, it is certainly worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in **Kishore** (supra) wherein, the affirmative declaration in law is that no teacher can be held responsible for alleged bogus admissions in a School, except if it is specifically shown that such a person had a direct hand in the same. 12. In the case at hand, as noticed above, neither Ext.P3 or Ext.P5 say that the petitioner was responsible for the alleged “bogus admissions” or that she had any role in the same. In fact, both these orders merely say that she is liable to refund the salary drawn by her during the period in question, but without explaining why. 13. In the afore circumstances, I am certain in my mind that Exts.P3 and P5 cannot find favour, to the extent to which it relates to the petitioner, and that it deserves to be set aside. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed, following the judgment of this Court in **Kishore (** supra); and I thus WP(C) NO. 20232 OF 2015 7 consequentially quash Exts.P3 and P5 to the extent to which it relates to the petitioner. **Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** **stu** WP(C) NO. 20232 OF 2015 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20232/2015** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT. P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 4552/2009 P DATED 12-08-2014 EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/4551/2014/L.DIS. DATED 24-112014 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 28-11-2014 EXT. P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (RT) NO. 1870/2015/G.EDN.DATED 1805-2015 OF THE GOVERNMENT EXT. P6:-TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01-07-2004 AND APPROVAL THEREON EXT.P7:-TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 09-05-2007 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.