The amendments to the Kerala Education Rules were upheld as valid, being in alignment with the objectives of the Right to Education Act and designed to curb fraudulent practices in school admissions.

Headnote:
Education - Right of Education - Kerala Education Act 1959, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 - Sections 9, 24, 36 - The court sanitized the amended rules made under the Kerala Education Act to align them with the Right to Education Act, confirming their constitutionality.
Fact of the Case:

This case involved writ petitions by school managers and teachers challenging amendments to the Kerala Education Rules, arguing inconsistencies with the Right to Education Act and the Kerala Education Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the amendments aimed to curb malpractices in admissions and teacher appointments and upheld their validity, noting they were aligned with the objectives of both Acts.
Issues: The main issues involved whether the amended rules were inconsistent with the Right to Education Act and the Kerala Education Act, including their implications for teacher responsibilities and student admissions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court stated that subordinate legislation, such as the amendments in question, must be consistent with the parent acts, and the amendments were designed to prevent misuse related to admissions and staffing.
Final Decision: Writ petitions dismissed.

J U D G M E N T

These writ petitions have been filed by Managers of a few Aided Schools and some aided school teachers challenging SRO No.375/2022 dated 18.4.22 as per which, the Government of Kerala, in the exercise of powers conferred by Section 36 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (Act 6 of 1959), framed Rules to amend the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 as Kerala Education (Amendment) Rules, 2 022. The petitioners have m ounted the challenge on the ground that the provisions are inconsistent with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory E ducation Act, 2009 (“Act 3 5 of 2009”) for the sake of brevity) and the Rules framed thereunder and also the various provisions of Act 6 of 1959, and the Rules framed thereunder.

2. The contentions raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions can be briefly summarized as under:

a) Chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 deals with admission, transfer, and removal of pupils. Rule 15 provides the circumstances under which pupils can be removed from the rolls. Rule 15(iii) in essence says that a pupil can be removed from the rolls if he has been absent without leave for 15 working days consecutively or has been continuously absent for 5 working days from the r eopening date. After Rule 15(iii), a Note has been inserted as Rule 2(2)(a)(i) of the Amendment Rules, 2022 which reads as follows:

“Note:- The teacher in charge of a class in Standard I X a nd X shall report the details of such absentees to the H eadmaster o r Headmistress or Vice-Principal, as the case may b e, s o a s t o remove them from the rolls under these rules.”

In addition, Rule 15A has been inserted after Rule 15, which reads as follows:

15A. The teacher in charge of a class in standard I t o V III s hall report the details of pupils who has been absent w ithout l eave for fifteen working days consecutively or who h as b een continuously absent for five working days from the r eopening d ay to the Headmaster or Headmistress or Vice-Principals, a s t he case may be. The Headmaster or Headmistress or V ice-Principal, as the case may be, shall take immediate follow-up a ctions i n consultation with the local authority in terms of S ection 9 o f t he Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education A ct, 2 009 (Central Act 35 of 2009).”

According to the petitioners, the Headmaster/Vice-Principal is the custodian of the Attendance Register and in that view of the matter, there is no justification in asking the teacher to report the details of absentees to the Headmaster. It is also not mentioned how and the manner in which the report had to be submitted. It is further stated that in terms of Rule 9(e) of Act 35 of 2009, it is the duty and responsibility of the local authority to ensure and monitor admission, attendance and completion of elementary education by every child residing within its jurisdiction and in that view of the matter, fastening responsibility on the Headmaster would amount to i nfringement of the provisions of the Central Act.

b) Chapter VII of the KER, 1959 deals with A ttendance, Holidays, and Vacation. Rule 6(1) provides for the maintenance o f an Attendance Register in Form 6 for each division of every standard. The petitioners assert that a Note has been inserted as per Rule 2(3) of the Amendment Rules, which reads as follows:

“Note:- The teacher in charge of a class shall mark t he a ttendance of the physically present pupils properly. If forged a ttendance i s detected, the teacher in charge of that class s hall b e h eld personally responsible.”

It is contended that imposing a personal responsibility on the teacher in charge of a class without notification in terms of Act 35 of 2009 and the Rules framed thereunder cannot be sustained.

c) Chapter XIVA of the KER, 1959 deals with Conditions of Service of Aided School teachers. Rule 1 provides that the Managers of private schools shall appoint only candidates who possess the prescribed qualification. As far as High School classes are concerned, the ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document