IMPORTANT POINT
Absence during inspections does not prove student admissions are bogus; proper evidence must be considered before imposing liability.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, who retired as the Headmistress of the New U.P. School, Easwaramangalam P.O., has filed this writ petition, challenging essentially the liability created against her, by various orders issued by the respondents herein.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

3. The petitioner has stated that she was working as the Headmistress of New U.P. School, Easwaramangalam P.O., Ponnani, (hereinafter referred to as “the school”, for short) for the period from 16.07.1999 to 31.05.2021. The staff fixation of the school for the academic year 2009-2010 was issued on 15.07.2009. However, the Super Check Cell of the 2nd respondent herein, conducted surprise visits in the school on 14.09.2009 and 18.12.2009, preparing reports with respect to the inspections. On the basis of the details gathered pursuant to the said inspection, the Director of Public Instruction issued Ext.P1 show cause notice dated 25.01.2010, proposing to abolish four posts in the school, alleging that 65 students included in the rolls were “bogus”. It is pointed out in the writ petition that the petitioner, being the Headmistress of the school, filed detailed objections to the show cause notice along with some relevant documents/materials to show that, out of the above 65 students, 24 were removed from the rolls on account of long absence, 26 students obtained transfer certificates and left the school and as regards the balance 15 students, it was pointed out that they were continuing with their studies in the same school. It is also pointed out that the certificates issued by the Headmistress of the schools in which the students, after obtaining transfer certificates, joined were also produced along with birth certificates of the students, age relaxation orders issued by the 4th respondent etc.

4. However, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P2 order dated 02.06.2010, finding that, seven students mentioned in Ext.P1 show cause notice are genuine. Therefore, as regards the balance 58, the 2nd respondent concluded that they were “bogus” and thereby abolished four posts in the school as proposed in the show cause notice. Though a revision petition was preferred, the Government by Ext.P3, rejected the same. Against the said proceedings, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No.14984 of 2011 and by Ext.P4 judgment dated 28.01.2021, this Court found as under:

“6. I have examined the impugned orders and notice therefrom that the reason why the Super check Cell and the Director of Public Instructions found the admissions of fifty eight students mentioned in Ext.P5 to be 'bogus', is because they were not present either of the two days when the Team visited the School. There is no doubt that a prima facie impression can always be drawn in such circumstances that these students are not genuine, but I am of the certain view Authorities being given a proper opportunity of establishing otherwise.

7. I say so because, it is possible, on account of some coincidence, that both on 14.09.2009 and 18.12.2009 certain students were absent and this by itself cannot lead to an irrefutable assumption that these students are all 'bogus' and not genuine. What is relevant is whether the School Authorities can establish, by cogent and reliable evidence, that these students were actually and physically admitted to the School; and for such purpose, they can always rely upon various documents, including the Admission Registers, UID documents, Attendance Registers and such other, in substantiation.

8. My observations as afore become relevant in this case because, Sri.M.R.Anison, learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently submits that all documents to prove that the students in question were actually admitted to the School and physically available, were produced before the Educational Authorities but that none of them have been referred to either in Ext.P5 or in Ext.P9 order.

9. Pertinently, the petitioners have produced certain documents before this Court