Audit party's lack of statutory power to question the actions of educational authorities and the respondents' actions in fixing the liability and withholding the DCRG were without any authority of law.

C.S. Rajan, J.

The petitioners in these Original Petitions were Assistant Educational Officers in the Education Department. They retired from Government Service on superannuation on 31.5.1994 and 30.6.1995 respectively. Even though pensionary claims were sanctioned by the authorities the petitioners' were not paid the DCRG. The petitioner in O.P. 10997/96 was served with Ext. P4 letter dated 26.7.1996 by the Asst. Educational Officer in which it was stated that the 2nd respondent had instructed him to obtain explanation of the petitioner on the objection raised by the Accountant General during his audit of the accounts and registers of the aided schools pertaining to 1994-95. A copy of the audit objection from the inspection report was also enclosed along with the above letter. A reading of the above objection will go to show that the alleged irregularities are related to the sanction of additional divisions in an aided school. An additional post was sanctioned in the above school on account of the re-visit conducted by the petitioner when he found that the effective strength of the pupils warranted sanction of one more post.

After extracting the roll strength of the school, the audit report came to the conclusion as follows:

"Accordingly 8 divisions and 8 posts of LPS. As were sanctioned to the school for the

year 1994-95. The revisit of the aeo in violation of the relevant rulings in KER resulted in the excess payment of salary of Rs. 34,000/- (Approx) to the junior-most teacher".

The only sentence which related to the alleged illegality or irregularity on the part of the petitioner is that the re-visit of the Asst. Educational Officer is in violation of the relevant rules as in KER which resulted in excess payment of salary to the junior most teacher. There is no reference to the violation the exact rule in the KER. There is also no reference to the provisions contained in the KER relating to staff fixation and the various verifications to be made by the hierarchy of the officers in the Education Department. Petitioner filed Ext. P5 reply to the above audit report. He has detailed the reason for the revisit and sanctioning of one more post. Thereafter, what the petitioner received was only a copy of Ext. P6 communication from the 2nd respondent to the Treasury Officer. By Ext. P6, a liability certificate of Rs. 3,77,205 has been forwarded with respect to the petitioner.

2. In the case of the petitioner in O.P. 9605/96 the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner by Exts. P2 and P3 that according to the audit objections an amount of Rs. 11437/- and 9846/- are pending as liability against the petitioner.

3. In view of these audit objections and fixation of the liability, the petitioners were not paid DCRG. That is why the petitioners approached this Court by filing these Original Petitions.

4. Sri. V. A. Mohammed the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the audit party from the office of the Accountant General has absolutely no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the order of staff fixation passed by the Educational Authorities. According to the learned counsel, R.12 of Chapter XXIII contains the complete machinery for fixation of the staff in aided schools. When the strength of the staff is fixed by an Asst. Educational Officer under R.12 of Chapter XXIII, the same is under scrutiny by higher officers under R.12C of Chap. XXIII KER. According to R.12C the DEO shall scrutinise all orders passed by the aeo in regard to fixation of staff strength in primary schools and may revise such of the orders as are found necessary. Such revision order shall be passed before the end of August every year. Appeal has been provided in R.12C of the above chapter. Under R.12E a revision shall lie to the Director of Public Instructions. Moreover, under R.15 not withstanding anything contained in these Rules if the educational authorities are satisfied for valid and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing that the fixation