1. Spoke. Oral judgment dated 3.10.2023 is recalled. This writ appeal is filed by the appellant/ petitioner in WP(C)No.10792 of 2016, the Manager of St.John’s Syrian Higher Secondary School and Teachers Training Institute, Vadakara, challenging the judgment dated 14.8.2023 in the above writ petition, whereby the learned Single Judge has confirmed Ext.P10 order passed by the second respondent, the Director of Public Instructions and the Manager has been declared as unfit to hold the office of the above school or in any other aided school in the State.
2. The appellant/petitioner was appointed as manager of the school for three years from 05.12.2005 and it was subsequently extended from time to time. Multiple legal challenges ensued regarding the appointment of the appellant/ petitioner. Another faction also challenged the appellant’s appointment which went upto the Apex Court and was dismissed. Another challenge against tenure extension was negated by the Court. Thereafter, the appellant's appointment from 2012 was approved. The opposing faction proposed a different manager, and that was rejected by the 3rd respondent, District Educational Officer. A representation was filed before the first respondent, Secretary General Education Department and the first respondent passed an order against the approval of the appellant as manager. The same was challenged before this court by filing WP(c)No.1633 of 2012 and this court directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the issue; subsequently, an order under Kerala Education Rules was issued appointing the District Educational Officer as interim manager. The appellant/petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.20652/2012, resulting in quashing the 1st respondent's order, and the Court directed the 3rd respondent to hand over charge of the manager to the petitioner. The same was challenged in writ appeal and was dismissed. In 2011, the 1st respondent directed an inquiry into the functioning of the school, admissions, and infrastructure, prompted by a complaint from Smt.Bindumol P.Abraham, who had been suspended by the appellant/petitioner. Following the inquiry conducted by Smt.V.K.Saralamma, who later became the Additional Director of Public Instructions, the 1st respondent instructed the 2nd respondent to take action against the appellant/ petitioner under Rule 7 of KER without granting the petitioner, a hearing. When Ext.P4 was issued, Smt.V.K.Saralamma was in the position of Additional Director and issued Ext.P5, disqualifying the petitioner. The petitioner contested Ext.P5 in W.P. (C)No.13596/2013, and this Court annulled Ext.P5, directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter in light of the judgments in Exts.P1 and P2. Following previous challenges, the 2nd respondent ordered the Deputy Director of Education to disqualify the petitioner under Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER. W.P.(C)No.25577/2014 and W.P. (C)No.25643/2014 were filed, resulting in a judgment setting aside the challenged order. This Court directed the 2nd respondent to conclude the disqualification process or delegate power to the Deputy Director. The Deputy Director disqualified the petitioner and the same was challenged in W.P. (C)No.28737/2014, and the order was recalled, leading to the closure of the petition. Subsequently, based on an administrative instruction by the 1st respondent from an enquiry report by Smt.V.K.Saralamma, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P10 on 14.12.2015, declaring the petitioner unfit for the manager's position in any aided school in the State. In response, the petitioner filed Ext.P11 for a review of Ext.P10 before the 1st respondent, which is pending.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. The appointment of the appellant as manager and the extensions upto 2010 are allegation that Ext.P10 order was passed by the 2nd respondent at the influence of the first respondent is totally incorrect. It was also found that the relationship between the manager and teachers had been badly strained. In Ext.P10 order, Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER was invoked and declared the petitioner unfit as manager, directing the Educational Agency to appoint a new manager as per the bylaws. The District Educational Officer, Muvattupuzha, assumed the managerial role for the interest of the school.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. We have considered the arguments on both sides.
5. Challenges to the appointment of the appellant led to several litigations. Finally Ext.P10 order was passed, complying with the directions in Ext.P9 judgment in W.P.(C)No.26051 of 2015, also by providing the petitioner with documents and a hearing before its issuance. The main allegations levelled against the petitioner are as follows: i) The petitioner has not kept the school building and the premises in good condition and necessary furniture has not been made available to the school including the fitness certificate issued by the Public Works Department, ii) nonsanctioning of annual increments of the staff of the school and undue delay in declaring probation of staff, iii) the mental torture and harassment, the teachers had to face from the petitioner.
6. Rule 7(1) of Chapter III of KER reads as follows:
“7. Action against Manager or Educational Agency in the event of mismanagement etc. – (1) In the event of mismanagement, malpractice, corruption or maladministration, gross negligence of duty, or disobedience of Departmental instruction on the part of the Manager or denial of appointment to a qualified thrownout teacher who has a rightful claim for reappointment by virtue of his/her holding the post earlier or denial of promotion to a teacher who is rightful claimant for promotion by the manager or conviction of the Manager for an offence involving moral turpitude it shall be open to the Director, after giving the Manager a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken and after due enquiry, to declare him unfit to hold the office of Manager in the school or in any other aided school and to require the educational Agency to appoint a suitable person as Manager.
Note - The enquiry mentioned in this sub-rule shall not be necessary in the case of conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude by a court of law.
7. As per letter dated 25.05.2012, the teachers have complained that the manager is not taking steps to complete the school maintenance, and the transportation facilities to bring the children to the school from different parts is not taken care of. The relationship between the manager and teachers had been badly strained. While passing Ext.P10 order, a letter dated 10.01.2014 produced by the petitioner/manager himself, was relied on by the second respondent. In the said letter, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner has made every effort to maintain the division strength by bringing students from far away places so that the loss of employment of teachers is prevented, which is selfexplanatory to prove the methods adopted by the manager. The enquiry conducted by the Deputy Director also states that the petitioner has given bogus admissions to maintain the staff strength. Hence, it is clear that there were sufficient reasons to invoke Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER. Though the petitioner has denied the allegations, it is not controverted by records to deny the charges levelled against him.
8. The contention of the appellant that the hearing conducted by the second respondent was an empty formality cannot be accepted. After a thorough enquiry and hearing conducted, the second respondent has come to the conclusion that there has been mismanagement or malpractice like giving bogus admissions to the students to maintain the staff strength. Once it is found that there is mismanagement or malpractice by the manager, the 2nd respondent is bound to take action against the manager or the educational agency under Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER. While passing Ext.P10 order, the second respondent was convinced that the manager has taken efforts to maintain the division strength by bringing students from far away places so as to prevent the loss of employment of the teachers. The second respondent also placed reliance on Ext.P9 letter dated 10.01.2014 produced by the manager. It was also found that bogus admissions were made by the manager to maintain the staff strength.
9. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is fully justified in declaring that the appellant/petitioner is unfit to hold the post of manager in the school in question. However, the finding of the second respondent in the concluding portion of Ext.P10 that the manager is unfit to hold the post of manager in any other aided school in the State is found to be unjustifiable and is to be set aside.
10. Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ext.P11 representation filed by the appellant before the first respondent is pending consideration and sought for a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P11 untrammelled by the observations made above.
11. In the result, the writ appeal is partly allowed with the following directions:-
i) The finding of the second respondent in the concluding portion of Ext.P10 to the extent that the appellant/petitioner is unfit to hold the post of manager in any other aided school in the State is set aside.
ii) The first respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 representation, untrammelled by the observations contained in this judgment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
iii) Before any orders are passed, the appellant shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard.
