R.Sajini vs State Of Kerala

Kerala High Court

R.Sajini vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2024

Author: Sathish Ninan

Bench: Sathish Ninan

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
        THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 11299 OF 2016
PETITIONER:

            R.SAJINI
            AGED 36 YEARS,W/O.GOPI KUTTAN,L.P.S.A., V.A.LOWER
            PRIMARY SCHOOL,ALUVASSERY, KOLLENGODE(VIA),PALAKKAD,
            NOW WORKING AS B.R.C. CO-ORDINATOR, BLOCK RESOURCES
            CETRE,KUZHALMANNAM,PALAKKAD.

            BY ADV SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

    2       THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
            JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

    3       THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
            CIVIL STATION,PALAKKAD-680 014.

    4       THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
            KOLLENGODE,PALAKKAD-678 508.

    5       THE MANAGER
            V.A.LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL,ALUVASSERY,
            KOLLENGODE(VIA),PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 508.

    6       THE HEADMASTER
            V.A.LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL,ALUVASSERY,
            KOLLENGODE(VIA),PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 508.

            BY ADVS.
            BY SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
            SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
            SRI.M.SAJJAD


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                       SATHISH NINAN, J.
             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                   W.P.(C) No.11299 of 2016
             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
             Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024

                        J U D G M E N T

The petitioner was appointed as LPSA in the V.A.L.P. School, Aluvassery from 09.06.2003 in a regular vacancy. On 10.08.2010 and 01.02.2011, the Super Check Cell (Malabar Region), Kozhikode, made surprise visits in the School. The cell detected bogus admissions. On excluding the bogus admissions from the roll strength, there occurred a division fall leading to retrenchment of the petitioner. The Assistant Education Officer as per Ext.P5 ordered that, the petitioner was working during the period 2010-2011 in a non-sanctioned post and that the salary drawn by the petitioner during the period 14.07.2010 to 31.03.2011 is liable to be recovered. The petitioner carried the order before the Government in Revision. As per Ext.P6 order, the Government rejected the revision affirming the orders of the AEO. It is challenging the same that the petitioner W.P.(C) No.11299 of 2016 -: 2 :- has approached this Court.

2. I have heard Sri.U.Balagangadharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Bijoy Chandran, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. Rule 17 Chapter XXIII of the KER fixes liability on the teacher in such cases, in addition to the Headmaster and the Manager. However, the said Rule 16 was incorporated only on 18.04.2022, and hence does not apply to the case at hand. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kishore V.G. v. State of Kerala and Others 2019 (4) KLT 153. The question posed for consideration therein was regarding the liability of a teacher retrenched from a sanctioned post, consequent to abolition of the post by the DPI based on the report of the Super Check Cell. It was held that the Teacher cannot be made liable. In the light thereof, liability could not be fixed on the petitioner, nor recovery effected. The learned W.P.(C) No.11299 of 2016 -: 3 :- Government Pleader relied on the Circular No.34025/J2/12/G.Edn. dated 21.06.2012 wherein it is stated that, salary of the teachers who were thrown out due to detection of bogus admission and had received salary, shall be recovered on their getting re- appointment. In the light of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court as above, the circular has no force.

4. Incidentally it is also noticed that, the reduction was of a division in standard IV, which led to the retrenchment of the petitioner. The Headmistress was in charge of the second division of the fourth standard. The inspection was on 10.08.2010 and 01.08.2011. The petitioner was on maternity leave from 21.06.2010 to 17.10.2010.

5. Hence the order of the authorities fixing the liability on the petitioner and ordering recovery, is liable to be set aside.

-: 4 :-

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed. Exts.P5 and P6 orders are quashed.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11299/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DPI DATED 31.03.2011.

EXHIBIT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 09.08.2012.

EXHIBIT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.09.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DAED 30.06.2014 PASSED BY THIS HONOURALBE COURT IN W.P. (C)NO.25025 OF 2013.

EXHIBIT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 05.09.2014 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 15.02.2016 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT

-----