1. This Writ Petition was initially filed by the petitioner by challenging Exhibit P2 and P6 orders and thereafter the petitioner has sought to amend the Writ Petition by filing I.A.No.384/2012 by which Exhibit P9 order is also under challenge.

2. The matter in issue is only whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service in the light of the fact that the District Educational Officer did not pass an order within 15 days as contemplated under Rule 67(8)of Chapter XIV-A KER, granting permission for continued suspension.

3. The petitioner was functioning as a Physical Education Teacher under the 2nd respondent-Manager. The order of suspension is dated 29.11.2011, produced as Exhibit P2 herein, which was objected to by him as per Exhibit P3, submitted before the Manager and Exhibit P4 before the District Educational Officer. According to the petitioner, he was served with a notice Exhibit P6 by the Personal Assistant to the District Educational Officer proposing to conduct a preliminary enquiry on 14.12.2011 at 3 p.m. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition immediately thereafter pointing out that the period of suspension has expired on 13.12.2011 and till 13.12.2011 educational authorities have not extended the suspension order and therefore in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Manager, S.N.V. High School v. State of Kerala (1982 KLT 229), no orders can be passed by the District Educational Officer as the 15 days' period is already over. It is also averred in the amended Writ Petition that enquiry itself was completed at 6.p.m. on 14.12.2011 and therefore Exhibit P9 order could not have been passed on 14.12.2011, as now claimed.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent-Manager, it is averred that the petitioner was placed under suspension by Exhibit P2 order on the basis of various complaints. The suspension was intimated to the District Educational Officer on the very same day; ie; on 29.11.2011 as per Exhibit R2(e) and the District Educational Officer was also requested to grant extension of sanction of 15 days as per letter dated 7.12.2011, Exhibit R2(f). It is pointed out that a preliminary investigation was conducted and the suspension was extended by Exhibit R2(h)order dated 14.12.2011, (Exhibit P9 produced in the amended Writ Petition).

5. The contention raised by the Manager is that 15 days will elapse on 14.12.2011 on which day, the Educational Officer has granted permission for extension of suspension and reliance is placed on Section 12 of the Limitation Act.

6. As far as the stand taken by the Personal Assistant to the District Educational Officer is concerned, it can be seen that the plea raised is that administrative delay had contributed to the delay in passing the order extending the period of suspension by 15 days. It appears that the District Educational Officer was on leave from 22.11.2011 to 13.1.2012. The Personal Assistant had to be given full additional charge and the appropriate authority to give such sanction is the Director of Public Instruction. The application by the Manager for extending the period of suspension was received on 9.12.2011. Since the Personal Assistant to the District Educational Officer was not vested with the full additional charge of the District Educational Officer, he could not consider the application submitted by the Manager.

Finally, it is stated that the files were placed before the Deputy Director of Education for his orders and approval, who by authorisation dated 13.12.2011 granted permission to pass appropriate orders. It is stated in paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that thereafter the Officer personally went to the institution and conducted a hearing & passed Exhibit R1(a) order (Exhibit P9). Evidently, the order is dated 14.12.2011. If it is reckoned from 29.11.2011, it is passed only on the 16th day.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Shri P.K.S