Point of law : through the amendment to the proviso to Rule 67(7) of Chapter XIVA of the KER – brought in by the Government as per GO(P)No.6/2019/G.Edn, dated 30.06.2019 -only an officer authorised by the Government can grant concurrence to the suspension of Higher Secondary School Teachers and Principals; while only the Deputy Director of Education (DDE) can offer such concurrence in the case of Headmaster/Headmistress/Vice Principal

JUDGMENT :

The Principal of the 'Sankara Menon Memorial Higher Secondary School', Palakkad, has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P18 order of the Manager, suspending her from service with effect from 23.09.2020; as also Ext.P20 order of the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education, Malappuram, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RDD’ for brevity), granting concurrence to the said suspension beyond 15 days, as per the provisions of the proviso to Rule 67(7) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER for short).

2. The plethora of documents and pleadings available on record reveals that the singular allegation of the petitioner against Ext.P18 order of suspension is that it has not been signed or issued by the Manager, but by another person, since he was abroad at the time when it was issued. As regards Ext.P20, the petitioner asserts that it is non-est and null because the RDD is not statutorily competent to grant concurrence to orders of suspension of Principals of Higher Secondary Schools.

3. I have heard Sri.Benoy Thomas – learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 -Manager and Headmaster of the school respectively; and Sri.P.M.Manoj – learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

4. Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan – learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, in response, submitted that the allegation of the petitioner, that Ext.P18 has been issued by a person other than the Manager, is wholly incorrect because, even though he was in the United States of America at the relevant time, he had served the order of suspension on the petitioner through E-mail. He, in substantiation, drew my attention to the statement filed on behalf of his clients on 11.12.2020, wherein, Ext.R4 series E-mails have been produced and thus asserted that the suspension ordered against the petitioner is without fault. He, thereafter, submitted that the Manager was constrained to issue Ext.P18 order of suspension because the RDD instructed him to do so, after finding that there were gross irregularities in the school, when he made a surprise inspection. He added that, therefore, after Ext.P18 order of suspension was served on the petitioner, the same was presented before the RDD for concurrence, as is required under Rule 67(7) of Chapter XIVA of the KER; and that the said Authority granted permission to continue the petitioner under suspension beyond the period of 15 days, through Ext.P18 order.

5. Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan thus prayed that the challenge of the petitioner to both Exts.P18 and P20 be repelled and that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

6. In reply, Sri.Binoy Thomas – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Ext.P18 suspension order is dated 22.09.2020 and is seen to have been posted from Palakkad on 23.09.2020, as is evident from the postal endorsements on Ext.P18(a). He argued that, therefore, when the Manager of the School, Rev.T.G.Johnson, was admittedly out of India on these days, it is impossible that Ext.P18 could have been signed by him, though it contains his signature, which he asserts is because another person was using his signed letter heads for creating such documents. He thus predicated that Ext.P18 is improper; and consequently, that Ext.P20 order of concurrence issued by the RDD would obtain no effect legally, even if the said officer is taken to have jurisdiction to issue it.

7. Sri. Binoy Thomas then submitted that Ext.P20 cannot find support in law either, because it has been issued by the RDD, who is incompetent to issue such an order under the proviso to Rule 67(7) of Chapter XIVA of the KER. He added that this is more so now, because of the amendments to the said proviso, which makes it limpid that only the Deputy Director of Education (DDE) can place a Headmaster/Headmistress/Vice Principal of the school under suspension; while the orders of suspension of Teachers/Principals of Higher Secondary Schools can be a