IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 30TH POUSHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 1422 OF 2025 PETITIONER:

BR.VARGHESE MANJALY (THE MANAGER)

AGED 55 YEARS S/O. OUSEPH, SHO HS MOOKKANNUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (RESIDING AT CST GENERALATE, ANGAMALY SOUTH ERNAKULAM), PIN - 683577 BY ADVS.

V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD RESPONDENTS:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 670613 SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2025 The petitioner is the Corporate Manager of an aided School. For the academic year 2023-2024, the Educational Officer issued Ext.P1 Staff Fixation Order sanctioning 12 HS Divisions and corresponding posts. However, as per Ext.P2, Ext.P1 order has been reviewed by the District Educational Officer. Ext.P2 is issued beyond the academic year.

2. While issuing Ext.P2, the District Educational Officer has no specific finding that there are sufficient reasons to reduce class Divisions observing that original Staff Fixation Order was obtained by way of fraud or misrepresentation. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that at no point of time, the students strength was reduced on the rolls of the School warranting revision of Staff Fixation Order. The Educational Officer was under a wrong impression that for reviewing the Staff Fixation Order, students who were available as on the 6^th working day alone would be taken into account. There is no such indication in Rule 12(8) of Chapter XXIII KER, contends the petitioner.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government as per Ext.P5 observed that while varying the Staff Fixation Order on account of leaving the students on TC or drop out, genuineness of those students would be taken into account. Such a procedure is not followed while issuing Ext.P2. The Director failed to appreciate this matter while issuing Exhibit Ext.P4.

4. Being aggrieved with Exts.P2, P4 and P5, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 Revision Petition before the 1^st respondent. As no orders are passed on the Revision Petition, the petitioner is before this Court filing the writ petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

6. The grievance of the petitioner relates to failure on the part of the respondents in sanctioning 12 Division in the High School Section and 3^rd post of HSA (Physical Science).

7. Going through the pleadings, I find that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 Revision Petition in this regard. Ext.P7 being a statutory Revision Petition, it would be only just and proper that the 1^st respondent considers the same and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P7 Revision Petition adverting to Ext.P5 also and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1422/2025 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER VIDE ORDER NO.D.DIS. B1/56682/2023 DATED 20.08.2023 Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

B1/763631/2024 DATED 05.08.2024 Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR DATED 28.09.2024 Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DIRECTOR VIDE NO.RA2/780606/2024 DATED

30.12.2024 Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.

8443/2024/G.EDN DATED 30.11.2024 Exh