Arijith Pasayat, C.J.

An interesting question has been referred by a Division Bench relating to the, question whether Deputy Director of Education has power or jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a teacher of Higher Secondary School. According to the State, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated under S.12A(2) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (in short'the act) read with R.67(2) of Chapter XIVA and R.7 of Chapter XIV B of the Kerala Education Rules, 1958 (in short'the rules').

2. Factual position is almost undisputed and the only factual aspect which needs to be noted is that the employee, with whose case the Division Bench was concerned, was placed under suspension pending enquiry. The order of suspension was passed alleging certain irregularities and malpractices in conducting the SSLC examination in the year 1999 at Centre No. 504. The order was challenged by the teacher before this Court in O.P.No. 9361 of 1999, which was dismissed. Against the said judgment the

above Writ Appeal was filed. The Division Bench felt that the question is of public importance and needs to be dealt with by a Full Bench and that is why reference was made.

3. After promulgation of national educational policy, reorganisation of secondary education was necessitated. The State Government accordingly issued orders in the year 1990 for introduction of Higher Secondary School system. A doubt seems to be lingering as to whether power contained in Chapter XIVA of the Rules would apply to the Higher Secondary School system. In K. Krishnankutty & Ors. v. State of Kerala (1998 (2) KLJ 301) a Division Bench held that Higher Secondary School system is totally outside the scope and applicability of the Rules and therefore Chapter XIVA of the Rules would have no application. When

4. It is to be noted that Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (in short'KER') deals with two grades, namely primary and secondary. Up gradation of Lower Primary Schools to Upper Primary Schools and Upper Primary Schools to High Schools is presently permissible. But up gradation from High Schools to Higher Secondary Schools is presently not permissible. Separate Rules prescribing service conditions and other connected matters have not yet been framed. It is not in dispute that plus two or higher secondary is a separate stage. That being the position, the absence of specific rules, executive orders govern the field. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a bare reading of clause (M) on which reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge, shows that the same was not applicable to a case of suspension. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the power given under clause (M) is wide enough to cover a case of suspension.

5. In order to appreciate the rival submissions the relevant clause ie., clause (M) needs to be quoted in full. The same reads as follows:

"Clause(M): Other Service Matters:

Until separate District Level Offices for Higher Secondary Education is formed, the service matters (Pay. Increment. Leave. Loans & Advances, etc.) regarding the Higher Secondary Teachers will be attended by the Principals, D.E.Os, D.D.Es, as is being done in the cases of High School Teachers." (Underlined for emphasis)

The provision relates to exercise of power in case of service matters i.e., pay, increment, leave, loans & advances, etc. It stipulates that until separate District Level Offices for Higher Secondary Education is formed, such powers are to be exercised by principles, D.E.Os., D.D.Es. as is being done in the cases of High School Teachers. Learned Single Judge took the view that the expression 'etc.' is wide enough to encompass a case of suspension. If the real intention was to include disciplinary matters, there was no necessity to refer to specific service matters such as pay, leave, loans and advances. None of these matters really relate to disciplinary action. The well known principle of ejusdem generis is clearly applicable t