Point of Law: Accountant General can only point out the illegality in the proceedings, and his objections cannot have effect of nullifying orders of proceedings taken by the statutory authorities.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners in these petitions are all working as teachers in different capacities at the High School, Pengamukku. They have approached this Court being aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the DEO, Chavakkad, dated 22.04.2017, revising the staff fixation of the school for the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010 on the ground that pertaining to the above academic years, the Accountant General has raised certain audit objections regarding the staff fixation carried out by the educational authorities.

2. Since common issues are involved, these writ petitions are considered together and are disposed of by a common judgment.

3. The petitioners contend that the order issued by the DEO, purportedly on the basis of an audit objection, cannot be sustained under the law in view of the law laid down by this Court in Usuvathunnisa v. Asst.Educational Officer, [1990 (2) KLT 530] and Somanatha Panicker v. State of Kerala, [1997 (1) KLT 305]. It is further argued that while issuing the impugned proceedings, the respondents have overlooked the statutory provisions, particularly Chapter XXIII of the KER. It is further contended that, in terms of the original staff fixation order, most of the teachers have discharged their duties, and on the basis of an audit objection raised by the Accountant General, the DEO cannot undo the issue, which has become final.

4. In the counter affidavit filed on similar lines, it is stated that the Accountant General conducted an audit of accounts of the DEO, and the special audit party found instances of bogus admissions for the academic years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010. It was revealed that most of the students who came through transfer from other schools had left the school immediately after the one-day verification. In addition, some of the newly admitted students were removed from the roll due to continuous absence. The removal of students was not reported by the Headmaster of the school to the DEO. If fixation was revised based on the removal of students, one division each in Standard VIII, IX and X ought to have been reduced during 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, and consequently, three High School Assistants (core subjects) were in excess. In terms of the audit objection, directions were issued by the Director to the DEO to revise the staff fixation, and it is consequent to the same that five teachers were found in excess. The excess amount drawn by the above teachers was liable to be recovered from the teachers concerned.

5. I have heard Sri.Brijesh Mohan and Sri.V.A.Muhammed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

6. Chapter XXIII of the KER deals with the mechanism for fixing the staff strength of teachers in Departmental and aided schools. Rule 12 provides that subject to the availability of accommodation, the strength of teaching staff in each school shall be fixed, and order shall be issued by the Educational Officer by the 15th July of each year after finalizing the number of divisions in each class, based on the strength of pupils on the roll. Rule 7 provides that the manager or the affected parties shall have the right to apply for a review of the order passed by the Government in terms of subrule (6) within 30 days from the date of the order. Rule 12C(1) enjoins the District Educational Officer to scrutinize all orders passed by the AEO in regard to fixation of staff strength insofar as primary schools are concerned. Rule 12C(2) provides that the Deputy Director of Education shall scrutinize all orders passed by the DEO in regard to the fixation of staff strength in High and Training Schools. The Manager of a school is entitled to prefer an appeal by invoking Rule 12D before the Deputy Director against an order passed by the DEO. A revision would lie to the Director against the orders passed by the Deputy Directors under the Chapter. Under Rule 12F, the Government is empowered, at any time, at their own motion or otherwise to call for th