Education rule: Extend Higher Secondary School Teachers’ Suspension Beyond 15 Days Empowered To Only State-Authorized Office: Kerala HC
D.D: 18 May 2022
According to the proviso to Rule 67(7) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), the sanction to extend the period of suspension of a teacher in a Higher Secondary School can only be granted by a government-authorized officer, and not by the Director of General Education (DGE).
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas added that, despite the fact that the power to suspend lies solely with the school manager and is absolute for the first fifteen days, the power to extend the period of suspension is a regulated power.
“Regarding Higher Secondary Schools, statutory regulations mandate that only a government-authorized officer may grant prior approval to extend the period beyond 15 days. In other words, only the authorised officer has the authority to extend the suspension period beyond 15 days.”
The petitioner, the Manager of a Higher Secondary School, suspended the fourth respondent (Principal) in 2020, but the High Court quickly overturned the suspension order. Immediately following, the petitioner suspended the fourth respondent once more. Although she asserted that this action constituted contempt, the court dismissed the contempt case, noting that if the statute was violated, the remedy was to challenge it.
In the meantime, the petitioner filed an appeal requesting that the DGE consider his request for an extension of the period of suspension imposed on the fourth respondent. The Court ruled that a determination must be reached within two weeks. Therefore, the fourth respondent was ordered reinstated.
However, the fourth respondent has been suspended since September 23, 2020, and she has not received a subsistence allowance since February 2021. This was contested before the Supreme Court.
The fourth respondent argued that the DGE denied the petitioner’s request for an extension of the suspension order because a sanction is required to extend a teacher’s suspension beyond 15 days. For this reason, it was argued, the petitioner had obtained an order directing the DGE to consider the representation.
In addition, the fourth respondent argued that she should have been reinstated at the conclusion of the initial period of suspension because the suspension had been lifted by the court. Instead, the petitioner issued a second suspension order, for which a further extension was also requested.
She also argued that Rule 67 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules mandates the reinstatement of any teacher whose suspension has not been extended. Since the suspension order was overturned by this court, she was entitled to pay from September 23, 2020 to July 4, 2021, minus 15 days beginning April 7, 2021. Furthermore, it was asserted that the fourth respondent’s salary must be paid beginning April 22, 2021, even if it is not due.
Advocate Kodoth Sreedharan represented the petitioner, Advocate P.C.Sasidharan represented the fourth respondent, and Senior Government Counsel Nisha Bose also participated in the case.
In Varghese v. Deputy Director of Education [2000 (2) KLT 109], the High Court determined that Rule 67 of chapter XIVA of the KER does not apply to Higher Secondary Schools. The provisions against the teaching and non-teaching staff of aided schools apply mutatis mutandis to the teaching and non-teaching staff of Aided Higher Secondary Schools, per a 2009 government order.
In 2019, the exception to Rule 67 and Rule 68 of Chapter XIVA of KER was modified. In light of the aforementioned amendment, Rules 67 and 68 now also apply to teachers at the secondary level. Therefore, the decision in the case of Varghese (supra) is no longer applicable.
The Court also observed that no authorization was issued by the government authorising the DGE to extend the suspension period. Thus, it was determined that in the absence of an officer authorised to grant permission to extend the 15-day suspension period, only the government can extend the period. The DGE cannot grant permission to extend the suspension period.
Therefore, legally speaking, the petitioner has not filed a request to extend the period of suspension with the proper authority.
Since, absent an order extending the suspension period beyond 15 days, the teacher is entitled to reinstatement in service, it was determined that the challenged order directing her reinstatement in service does not warrant interference.
The petition was therefore denied.
Rev. T.G. Johnson
versus
State of Kerala & Ors.
