Teachers cannot be held liable for bogus admissions without specific evidence attributing involvement under Kerala Education Rules.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2026 [W.P.(C) Nos.26759, 27288 and 27340 of 2020 and

39980 of 2025]

The petitioners in all these writ petitions are Teachers who had rendered service in Aided Schools and were subsequently retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance of the petitioners is that orders have been passed directing to recover amount from their salary / terminal benefits on the ground that the authorities have fixed liabilities on them.

2. The petitioners would contend that the liability has been fixed on the petitioners due to objections regarding the alleged bogus admission in the classes during relevant years. It was alleged that bogus admissions had resulted in financial loss to the Government.

3. The petitioners submit that the recovery cannot be effected from the salary / terminal benefits of Teachers alleging bogus admission in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kishore V.G. v. State of Kerala and others [ 2019 (4) KLT 153 ].

4. Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners are Teachers, who are responsible to take daily attendance of students and to note the absentees and report to the Headmaster. When bogus admissions are made in the Schools, the Teachers are equally responsible. The Government will be at liberty to recover amounts from the Headmaster as well as Teachers for any loss that may be caused to the Public Exchequer consequent to the bogus admissions.

5. The Government Pleader pointed out that in the case agitated in one of the writ petitions, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau has conducted detailed examination and has submitted a report. The Government Pleader reiterated that the Teachers are also responsible for admission and removal of students as per the Kerala Education Rules , 1959 and hence the impugned orders are sustainable.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the official respondents.

7. The petitioners are retired Teachers. Some of the petitioners were later promoted as Headmasters before their retirement. Amounts are sought to be recovered from their salary alleging bogus admission of students in the Schools.

8. The question whether in cases of bogus admission, recovery can be made from the salary / terminal benefits of the Teachers, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Kishore V.G. (supra). This Court held that Chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules , 1959 deals with admission, transfer and removal of pupil from the Schools. A reading of the provisions of Chapter VI of the , 1959 revealed that the person authorised to admit, remove or to issue Transfer Certificate to a student is the Headmaster of the School. There is no provision under the Kerala Education Act or the Rules which ascribe any role to a Teacher in the administration of the School or even in the process of admission of students to the School.

9. This Court therefore held that in the absence of specific evidence, a Teacher cannot be attributed with any role in the bogus admissions recorded in the Admission Register of the School.

10. In view of the afore Division Bench judgment, I am of the firm opinion that recovery of money ordered from the terminal benefits of the petitioners, is illegal and arbitrary.

The writ petitions are therefore allowed. Orders impugned in these writ petitions seeking recovery of amount from the salary / terminal benefits of the petitioners are set aside.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO