SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Ker) 97

Judges : N.K.SODHI,K.K.DENESAN
State of Kerala - Appellant
Versus
Jayasree K.M.& Another - Respondent
Case No : WA. No. 857 of 2003 (A)
Decided On : 03/10/2004
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellants: Roy Chacko, Government Pleader. For the Respondents: R. Rajasekharan Pillai, P. Haridas, T.K. Latheef, K.R. Sukumara Pillai, C.P. Saji, Advocates.

Headnote:

Education Rules 1959 Kerala, Chapter XXIII, Rule 12(2) - Petitioner who was affected Teachers against which petitioner had been appointed abolition of post of Drawing Teacher in School from year was approved - Not satisfied with orders of the Deputy Director (Education) and State Government P5 petitioner filed which came up for hearing before a Judge – Held, It is against this order that present appeal has been filed Kerala High Court Act - if an order of scrutiny is passed after end of August in any year same shall not be illegal merely on that ground - Judges of Court were construing provisions of Industrial Disputes Act which provides for publication of an award within days - It was held that provision insofar as its publication is concerned is mandatory but the time of days prescribed was only directory and that an award published beyond the period would not be invalid as already observed a provision fixing a time within which a public officer or authority has to act in performance of a duty generally means that the statute considers it reasonable for officer or authority to act within said period and if that period expires it does not make act illegal unless the statute or the rule provides for the same. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that the requirement of an order of scrutiny to be passed before end of August each year is only directory in nature and will not make the order of scrutiny illegal merely because it was passed thereafter - The question posed is answered in the negative In it has to be held that the order by Deputy Director is not illegal merely because it was passed after State Government was right in upholding the same - In this view of the matter the finding recorded by Judge that orders were invalid because they had been passed beyond the time prescribed of Rules cannot be sustained

Judgment :-

N.K. Sodhi, Ag. C.J,

Jayasree K.N. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was appointed a Drawing Teacher in Seethathodu High School, Seethathodu, Pathanamthitta (for short the School) with effect from 1.6.1992. By order dated 19.8.1992 the District Educational Officer, Pathanamathitta fixed the staff strength of the School for the academic year 1992-93 and created one additional post of a Drawing Teacher in the pay scale of Rs.845-1570. On a scrutiny of the staff fixation, the Deputy Director (education) by his order dated 30.1.1993 (copy of which is Ext.P3 on the record) abolished the newly sanctioned post of the Drawing Teachers against which the petitioner had been appointed. Before passing the order a notice was issued to the Manager of the School and also to the petitioner who was the affected teacher to show cause why the post should not be abolished. The Deputy Director found that the School was having six Divisions in Standard VIII and five Divisions in Standard IX and that one period had been allotted to the Art subject Music/Drawing in Standard VIII and one period for the subject Music/Drawing/Craft & Sewing in Standard IX. He concluded that the availability of the periods for the Group Music/Drawing in the School were only 8 ½ and that there was already a Music Teacher working in the School and, therefore, the sanction of an additional post of a Drawing Teacher in the School without sufficient number of period for the subject was not proper. This power was exercised by the Deputy Director under sub-rule (2) of Rule 12C in Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules (for short the Rules) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.1.1993, the Manager of the School filed a petition under Rule 12F of the Rules before the State Government and the same was dismissed. A communication dated 24.3.2001 was received by the Manager of the School (copy of which is Ext. P5 on the record). The State Government informed the School that since the total number of periods available to Arts group was only 8 ½, a post of a Drawing Teacher could not be sanctioned in addition to the existing post of a Music Teacher. The abolition of the post of the Drawing Teacher in the School from the Year 1992-93 was approved. Not satisfied with the orders of the Deputy Director (Education) and the State Government (Exts.P3 and P5), the petitioner filed O.P. No. 21910 of 2001, which came up for hearing before a learned single Judge. Reference was made to Rule 12C of the Rules which provides for scrutiny of staff fixation by higher officers. The Deputy Director (Education) is required to scrutinize all orders passed by the District Educational Officer in regard to fixation of staff strength in High Schools and he may revise such of the orders as are found necessary. The Rule further provides that the revision orders shall be passed before the end of August every year and a copy of every such order shall be forwarded to the Director and the Manager/Head Master of the School. Since the order revising the staff strength in the School had not been passed before the end of August 1992 the learned single Judge concluded that the same was contrary to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 12C if the Rules and, therefore, illegal. He accordingly quashed the order-dated 30.1.1993 and also the communication dated 24.3.2001 received from the State Government affirming the order passed by the Deputy Director. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the appeal deserves to succeed. Rule 12 and 12C which are relevant for our purpose may be noticed at this stage. The relevant parts of these rules read as under:

“12. Strength of teaching staff:- Subject to the availability of accommodation the strength of teaching staff in each school shall be fixed by the Educational Officer in accordance with the above general prov









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top