The Manager A.U.P School, Pallikkal, Janakeeya Vidyalyam, Machad, and Koorikuzhi AMUP School, Kaippamangalam v. State of Kerala and others

**WP(C) NO. 25611 OF 2022** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 25611 OF 2022** **PETITIONER:** THE MANAGER A.U.P SCHOOL, PALLIKKAL, JANAKEEYA VIDYALAYAM, MACHAD. KOORIKUZHI A.M.U.P SCHOOL, KAIPPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680681. BY ADVS. C.D.DILEEP SHYLAJA VARGHESE ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695001. 2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695014. 3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680506. 4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 680 582. 5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680567. 6 VARGHESE P.C., AGED 38 YEARS LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, AUPS PALLIKKAL, PALLAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 679532. **WP(C) NO. 25611 OF 2022** **2** 7 PRAJISHA V., LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, KOORIKUZHI AMUP SCHOOL, KAIPPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680681. BY ADVS. M.A.FAYAZ M.VISHNUPRIYA C.B.ABHINAVA SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 25611 OF 2022** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing the Ext.P8 order passed by the 2nd respondent. ii. To declare that the Ext.P8 order is illegal and based on misleading facts. iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, orders and directions directing/commanding the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in the Ext.P9 Revision Petition within a time frame, after hearing the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the Manager of 3 aided schools, namely, AUP School, Pallickal, Janakeeya Vidyalayam, Machad and Koorikuzhi AMUP School, Kaippamangalam. He contends that in his capacity as Corporate Manager of the school, he has carried out transfers of 2 teachers who have been arrayed as party respondents herein. According to the petitioner, respondents 6 and 7 have challenged the order of transfer by preferring appeals before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P8 order as per which the transfer order passed by the petitioner has been frozen. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P8 cannot be sustained under law. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is stated to have invoked Rule 92 of Chapter XIV (A) of the KER, and has preferred Ext.P9 revision petition before the 1st respondent. Seeking issuance of directions **WP(C) NO. 25611 OF 2022** **4** to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 and take a decision, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 7th respondent levelling serious accusations against the petitioner herein. It is stated that numerous criminal proceedings and actions initiated by the educational authorities are pending against the petitioner. The 7th respondent attempted to justify the impugned order and it is contended that an inadvertent error in the order is being highlighted to set aside the same. The 7th respondent was transferred by the petitioner against which she had approached this Court and had secured interim orders. It is solely with a view to harass the 7th respondent that this writ petition is filed with innocuous prayers. 4. I have heard Sri. C.D.Dileep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. M.A.Fayaz, the learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent and the learned government Pleader. 5. Sri. Dileep relying on the law laid down in **Ravindra Babu v. State** [1987 (1) KLT 472] submitted that this Court has held that sub rule (1) of Rule 92 makes it clear that all orders in respect of matters contained in Chapter XIV A are revisable under Rule 92 whether such orders are made by the original authority or by the appellate authority. According to the learned counsel, in that view of the matter, notwithstanding the accusations made by the 7th respondent, it is only just and proper that the 1st **WP(C) NO. 25611 OF 2022** **5** respondent considers the revision petition and takes a decision. 6. Sri. Fayaz submitted that if this Court is issuing directions to the 1st respondent to consider the matter, the said respondent be directed to consider the grievances raised by the 7th respondent as well. The learned counsel would specifically refer to paragraph No.8 of the counter affidavit, wherein certain serious accusations have been leveled against the petitioner. It is submitted that the 1st respondent be directed to enquire into those allegations as well. 7. The specific allegation leveled against the petitioner in paragraph No. 8 of the counter reads as under: “It is submitted that due to the highhanded and arbitrary action of the writ petitioner the teachers, and non-teaching staffs in the 3 schools under his management are working with much pressure, and anxiety. On frivolous issues the writ petitioner threatens the teachers with dire consequences. Teachers are compelled to mark the attendance of students who are not present in class to inflate the students strength. This academic year petitioner was appointed as class teacher of 3rd standard, and one Sri.Aysha T.S(Admission No.11058) was not present from 01.06.2022. When this fact was intimated to the Headmistress, she directed this respondents to contact the writ petitioner. But the writ petitioner instructed this respondents not to mark absent against the name of Aysha T.S who was found absent from 01.06.2022. When this respondent refused to comply with the illegal directions this respondent was removed as the class teacher **WP(C) NO. 25611 OF 2022** **6** of the 3rd standard. This respondent was shifted to 1st standard from 16.06.2022 in the 1st standard also 2 students were continuously absent, when this fact was intimated to the HM she informed this respondent that she is helpless and cannot advice this respondent on the above issue. So this respondent marked the missing students as absent in the class”. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced. From the materials made available before this Court and submissions advanced, it appears that the relief now sought for by the petitioner is limited to consideration of Ext.P9 pending before the 1st respondent. Since the petitioner has availed a statutory remedy, necessary directions can be issued. At the same time, very serious accusations are levelled in the counter affidavit filed by the 7th respondent, which, if true, would warrant appropriate action from the side of the official respondents. Having considered the entire facts, I am of the view that directions can be issued to the 1st respondent to consider the entire aspects and take a decision on Ext.P9. Resultantly, the following directions are issued: a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 filed by the petitioner and take a decision with notice to the petitioner, the 7th respondent and other affected parties, if any. While taking a decision, the 1st respondent shall also advert to the **WP(C) NO. 25611 OF 2022** **7** grievances raised by the 7th respondent and detailed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court. To enable the 1st respondent to do so, the 7th respondent shall make available a copy of the counter affidavit filed before this Court. The entire exercise shall be completed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Until orders are passed on Ext.P9, Ext.P8 order shall continue to operate. b) If any of the allegations levelled by the 7th respondent are found genuine, the 1st respondent shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. c) The petitioner shall produce a copy of this writ petition along with this judgment before the 1st respondent for further action. This writ petition is disposed of. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** IAP **WP(C) NO. 25611 OF 2022** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25611/2022** ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.14/2021/TRANSFER, DATED 27/08/2021 OF THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 30/08/2021 FILED BY SRI.VARGHESE P.C. BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DGE. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 31/08/2021 FILED BY SMT.PRAJISHA V. BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DGE. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON INTERIM ORDER DATED 03/09/2021 IN WP(C) 17807/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C-4055/14/KDIS DATED 8/1/15 OF THE AEO APPROVING THE PETITIONER AS THE MANAGER OF AUPS PALLIKKAL. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E-325/13/KDIS DATED 13/1/15 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT APPROVING THE PETITIONER AS MANAGER OF JV MACHAD. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.492/2012/DIS DATED 21.07.2012 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT AEO APPROVING THE PETITIONER AS THE MANAGER OF KOORIKUZHI AMUP SCHOOL. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED ORDER NO.E(3)/9940/2021/D.G.E OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 01/08/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. **WP(C) NO. 25611 OF 2022** **9** Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER RIGHT TO INFROMATION ACT BEFORE THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION OFFICER OF VALAPPAD AEO OFFICE DATED 1/11/2021 Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION OFFICER OF WADAKKANCHERRY AEO OFFICE IN CONNECTION WITH AUPS PALLIKKAL DATED 1/11/2021 - Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION OFFICER OF WADAKKANCHERRY AEO OFFICE IN CONNECTION WITH AMUP SCHOOL KOORIKUZHI DATED 1/11/2021 - Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE OFFICE OF VALAPPAD AEO OFFICE - Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF WADAKKANCHERRY AEO OFFICE, IN CONNECTION WITH AUPS PALLIKKAL DATED 30/11/2021 - Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF WADAKKANCHERRY AEO OFFICE IN CONNECTION WITH JV MACHAAD DATED 30/11/2021 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: - Exhibit R7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER AS LPST DATED 1/6/2011 CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENT OF APPROVAL BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit R7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DDE THRISSUR DATED 26/7/2022 Exhibit R7(c) TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.1374/2022/G.EDN DATED 7/3/2022 Exhibit R7(d) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER **WP(C) NO. 25611 OF 2022** **10** RTI ACT BY SRI.SAIGAL.V.A DATED 20/11/2021 Exhibit R7(e) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT'S OFFICE DATED 24/12/2021 Exhibit R7(F) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.83/2020/FIN. DATED 30/12/2020 Exhibit R7(G) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A6/249139/RDD/HSE/EKM/2022 DATED 04/08/2022 ISSUED BY THE RDD, ERNAKULAM Exhibit R7(H) TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT Exhibit R7(I) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. DDETSR/3575/2021-B1 DATED 19/11/2021 ISSUED BY THE DDE THRISSUR Exhibit R7(J) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 08/11/2021 Exhibit R7(K) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED TO R7 (J) BY THIS RESPONDENT DATED 17/11/2021