The Assistant Educational Officer did not have the power to nullify the approved appointments or to direct recovery of salary. The directions for refund of excess salary were without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

These original petitions are filed by Arabic Teachers, whose appointment as full-time teachers in the respective Lower Primary Schools had been approved by the Assistant Educational Officer concerned since 1982-83. The facts in O.P.No. 9273 of 1985 are as follows. The petitioner was appointed as a full-time Arabic Teacher on 15-7-1982 in an additional post, which was sanctioned in the staff fixation for the year 1982-83. Her appointment was approved for the year 1982-83 by the proceedings Ext.P1 of the Assistant Educational Officer. The post was continued in the subsequent years 1983-84,1984-85 and 1985-86 as well and the petitioner continued in service. While so, the Accountant General by his proceedings dated 8-2-1985, raised objection to the sanctioning of the additional post of full-time Arabic Teacher in the school in 1982-83. It was his view that the strength of Muslim pupils studying Arabic did not warrant the additional post and that the additional post had been sanctioned contrary to the provisions of Rule 2A(1) of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules (the rules ). On the objection being raised, the Assistant Educational Officer instructed the Manager by his proceedings Ext.P2 dated 5-9-1985 to terminate the services of the petitioner with immediate effect, and also to recover the excess salary paid to her for the period from 15-7-1982 to 30-6-1985. Petitioner challenges the proceedings Ext.P2 of the Assistant Educational Officer.

2. Though the petitioner has challenged Ext.P2 in its entirety, including the direction to terminate her services, the latter challenge is not pressed at the time of hearing for the reason that the petitioner has got relief from the Department itself regarding her continuance in the school. It is said that the Assistant Educational Officer subsequently passed an order approving her continuance in the school. The only question to be considered therefore is the validity of the direction to recover the excess salary for the period from 15-7-1982 to 30-6-1985.

3. The facts in O.P. No 9381 of 1985 are similar. The petitioner in that case was appointed as full-time Arabic Teacher on 19-7-1982 in a post sanctioned as per the order of staff fixation for the year 1982-83. The post was continued in the subsequent years as well. The appointment was approved all along from 1982-83 to 1985-86. It was while so that consequent on an audit note of the Accountant General, Trivandrum, and the Assistant Educational Officer directed the Manager of the school to terminate the petitioner.s services and to recover the salary drawn for the period from 15-7-1983. The reason for the direction was that the Assistant Educational Officer had wrongly sanctioned the post to which the petitioner was appointed by taking into account the strength of students in Standard V as well, instead of confining the strength to Standards I to IV. Consequent on this direction Ext, P4, the Manager issued Ext.P3 notice to the petitioner to refund the salary drawn from 15-7-1983 and also to show cause why his service should not be terminated forthwith. Subsequently the Assistant Educational Officer passed an order Annexure 2 on 24-10-1985 sanctioning the petitioner.s appointment as full-time Arabic Teacher in the school from 15-7-1985, however, directing that he will be paid only at the minimum of the scale of pay admissible for such teacher without taking into account the past services rendered from 19-7-1982. The petitioner has not challenged Annexure 2 in this original petition, so that at this stage the only question for consideration is whether the direction contained in Ext.P3 and P4 for refund of the salary drawn from 15-7-1983 is legal and valid.

4. Counsel for the respective petitioners submit that when the staff fixation orders had sanctioned the posts, the petitioners. appointment to those posts approved, and those proceedings have become final, it is not open to the Assistant Educational Officer subsequently to