STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERSversusPRESIDENT, PARENT TEACHER ASSN. SNVUP AND OTHERS

                           [2013) 4 S.C.R. 66


A                STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
                                    v.
      PRESIDENT, PARENT TEACHER ASSN. SNVUP AND
                           OTHERS
                (Civil Appeal No. 958 of 2013)
B
                         FEBRUARY 06, 2013
        [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

        Education - Kera/a Education Rules - Chapter XX/II -
C r.12(3) rlw r. 16 -Irregular fixation of schoolstaff- Staff fixation
   order obtained through bogus admission of students and
   misrepresentation of facts - Verification of actual students'
   strength - By Police - Justification - Whether High Court
  justified in directing the Secretary, General Education
D Department of the State to get the verification of the actual
  students' strength in all the aided schools in the State with the
   assistance of the police and to take appropriate action - Held:
   Due to irregular fixation of staff, the State exchequer incurs
  heavy financial burden by way of pay and allowances - Great
E responsibility, therefore, cast on the General Education
  Department to curb such menace which not only burden the
   State exchequer but also give a wrong signal to the society
  at large - However, investigation by the police with regard to
  verification of the school admission, register etc., particularly
F with regard to admissions of the students in the aided schools
  will give a wrong signal even to the students studying in the
  school and the presence of the police itself is not conducive
  to the academic atmosphere of the schools - In such
  circumstances, directions given by the High Court for police
G intervention for verification of the students' strength in all the
  aided schools set aside - However, direction given to the
  State Education Department to forthwith give effect to a
  circular dated 12.10.2011 to issue UID Card to all the school
  children and follow the guidelines and directions contained
  in their circular - No reason to interfere with the direction
H                                  66
STATE OF KERALA v. PRESIDENT, PARENT TEACHER                    67
                ASSN. SNVUP
given by the Director of Public Instructions (DP/) to take further    A
action to fix the liabilities for the irregularity committed in the
school, for which appeal pending before the State
Government - State Government to consider the appeal and
take appropriate decision, if it is still pending.
                                                                      B
     Dispute arose as to whether staff fixation of the
school concerned for the year 2008-09 was obtained
through bogus admissions of students and
misrepresentation of facts. Physical verification by the
Super Check Cell reveal~d wrong recording of
attendance. Consequently, t~e Director of Public                      C
Instructions (DPI) passed order revising the staff fixation
of the. school for the year 2008-09 as per Rule 12(3) read
with Rule 16 of_ Chapter XXJll of the Kerala Education
Rules.
                                                                      D
     By the im·pugned order, the High Court held that
manipulation by the school management was obvious,
though not to the extent found by the Super Check Cell
based on which the Df'.>I had passed its order. The High
Court further held that since the Education Department E
lacked the investigating skill or the authority to collect
information from the field, it would be appropriate that the
verification of actual students in all the aided schools in
the State be done through the police. Holding so, the
High Court directed the Secretary, Department of F
Education, to get verification of the actual students
studying in all the aided schools in the State done
through the police authorities and take appropriate.
action.

     In the instant appeal filed by the State of Kerala, the          G
question which arose for consideration was whether the
High Court was justified in directing the Secretary,
General Education Department of the State to get the
verification of the actual students' strength in all the aided
                                                                      H'
    68       SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2013] 4 S C.R.

A schools in the State with the assistance of the police and
  to take appropriate action.

         Allowing the·appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1. The State itself had admitted in the petition
B that there should be a better mechanism to ascertain the
   number of students in the aided schools which could be
  done by finger printing or any other modern system so
  that the students could be properly identified and staff
  fixation could be done on the basis of relevant data. An
C additional affidavit has been filed by the State of Kerala
  stating that the Government after ·much thought and
  deliberations formulated a scientific method to resolve
  the issue emanating from staff fixation orders every year.
  The affidavit says that the number of students in the
o school can be determined through Unique Identification
  Card (UID) technology and the number of divisions could
  be arrived at on the basis of revised pupil teacher ratio.
  Further, it is also pointed out that after implementation of
  UID as a part of scientific package, the government will
E remand the matter of identification of bogus admission
  to the DPI for considering issues afresh after
  corroborating the findings of Super Check Cell with UID
  details of the students .. The State has issued a circular
  No. NEP (3) 66183/2011 dated · 12.10.2011 which, ·
F according to the State, would take care of such situations
  happening in various aided schools in the State. [Paras
  14, 15] [77 -B-C, D·G]
       2. Even though the High Court was not justified in
  directing police intervention, the situation that has
G unfolded in this case is the one that one gets in many
  aided schools in the State. Many of the aided schools in
  the State, though not all, obtain staff fixation order
  through bogus admissions and misrepresentation of
  facts. Due to the irregular fixation of staff, the State
H exchequer incurs heavy financial burden by way of pav
           .       '                                    --
  STATE OF KERALA v. PRESIDENT, PARENT TEACHER            69
                  ASSN. SNVUP
  and allowances. The State has also to expend public A
  money in connec&:ion with the payment of various
  scholarships, lump-sum grant, noon-feeding, free books
  etc. to the bogus students. A great responsibility is,
  therefore, cast on the General Education Department to
  curb such menace which not only burden the State B
  exchequer but also will give a wrong signal to the society
  at large. The Management and the· Headmaster of the
  school should be a role model to the young students
  studying in their schools and if themselves indulge in
  such bogus admissions and record wrong attendance of c
  students for unlawful gain, how they can imbibe the
   guidelines of honesty, truth and values\ in life to the
  students. However, the investigation by the police with
   regard to the verification of the school admission, register
, etc., particularly with regard. to the admissions of the
                                                                0
   students in the, aided schools will give a wrong signal
   even to the students studying in the school and _the
   presence of the police itself is not conducive to the
   academic atmosphere of the schools. In such
   circumstances, the directions given by the High Court for E
   police intervention for verification of. the students'
   strength in all the aided schools are set aside. [Paras 16,
   17] [77 -H; 78-A-f]

      3. However, a direction is given to the Education
  Department, State of Kerala to forthwith give effect to a      F
  circular dated 12.10.2011 to issue UID Card to all the
  school ch.ildren and follow the guidelines and directions
  contained in their circular. The Government can always
  adopt, in future, better scientific methods to curb such
  types of bogus admissions in various aided schools.            G
  [Para 18] [78-G]
       4. There is, therefore, no reason to interfere with the
  direction given by the DPI to take further action to fix the
  liabilities for the irregularity committed in the school for   H
     70        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A the years 2008-09 and 2009-10, for which the appeal is
  pending before the State Government. The State
  Government will consider the appeal and take appropriate
  decision in accordance with law, if it is still pending. [Para
  19] [78-H; 79-A-B]
B
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 958
  of 2013.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 15.10.201 Oof the High
    Court of Kera la at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 1195 of 2010.
c
        Sana Hashmi, Philip Mathew, Liz Mathew for the
    Appellants.

          P.A. Noor Muhamed, Giffara S. for the Respondents.

D         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

        2. We are in this appeal concerned with the question
E whether the High Court was justified in directing the Secretary,
  General Education Department of the State of Kerala to get the
  verification of the actual students' strength in all the aided
  schools in the State with the assistance of the police and to
  take appropriate action.

F       3. The Assistant Educational Officer (AEO), Valappad had
  fixed the staff strength of S.N.V.U.P. School, Thalikulam for the
  year 2008-09 based on the visit report of High School
  Association (SS), GHS Kodakara as per Rule 12of Chapter
  XXlll of Kerala Education Rules (KER). Later, based on a
G complaint regarding bogus admissions and irregular fixation of
  staff for the year 2008-09 by the AEO, the Super Check Cell,
  Malabar Region, Kozhikode made a surprise visit in the school
  on 17.09.2008 and physically verified the strength of the
  students and noticed undue shortage of attendance on that day.
H The strength verified by the Super Check Cell was not sufficient
STATE OF KERALA v. PRESIDENT, PARENT TEACt-JER               71
     ASSN SNVUP [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN. J.]
for allowing the divisions and posts sanctioned by the AEO. The A
Head Master of the School, however, stated in writing that the
shortfall of attendance on the day of inspection was due to
"Sadar Day" of Muslim community and due to distribution of rice
consequent to that. In order to confirm the genuineness of the
facts stated by the Head Master, the Cell again visited the B
school on 16.12.2008. Verification could not be done on that
day, hence the Cell again visited the school on 02.02.2009 and
 physically verified the students' strength. On that day also, there
were large number of absentees as noticed on 17.09.2008. On
 verification of attendance register, it was found that the class c
 teachers of respective classes had given bogus presence to
 all students on almost all the days. Enquiry revealed that the
 school authorities had obtained the staff fixation order for the
 year 2008-09 through bogus recordical admissions.

     4. The Director of Public Instructions (DPI), D
Thiruvananthapuram consequently issued a notice dated
07.05.2009 to the Manager of the School of his proposal to
revise roll strength and revision of staff strength by reducing one
division each in Std. I, II, IV to VII and 2 divisions in Std. Ill and
consequent posts of 5 LPSAs, 3 UPSAs in the school during E
the year 2008-09. The Manager of the school responded to the
notice vide representation dated 27.05.2009 stating that Super
Check Officials did not record the attendance particulars of the
students in the visit record and had tampered with the
attendance register. The Manager had also pointed out that the F
Headmaster was not responsible to compensate the loss
suffered by the Department by way of paying salary to the
teachers who had worked in the sanctioned posts. Further, it
was also pointed out that the staff fixation should not be done
within the academic year and re-fixation was not permissible G
 as per Rule 12E(3) read with Rule 16 of Chapter XXlll, KER
 and requested not to reduce the class divisions.

    5. The DPI elaborately heard the lawyers appearing for the
 Headmaster and the Manager of the school, affected teachers        H
     72        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 4 S.C.R.


A as well as the officials of the Super Check Cell. Having heard
   the submissions made and perusing the records made
   available, the DPI found that the staff fixation of the school for
   the year 2008-09 was obtained through bogus admissions and
   misrepresentation of facts. DPI noticed that the roll strength
B during the year 2008-09 was 1196. There were 404 absentees
  on the first visit of the Cell on 17.09.2008. The Super Check
  Cell again visited the school on 16.12.2008 and 02.02.2009
  and it was found that among 404 students absent on the first
  day, 179 names were bogus and irregular retentions. The
C physical presence of 179 students could not be verified on all
  the three occasions DPI. therefore. passed an order revising
  the staff fixation of the school for the year 2008-09 as per Rule
  12(3) read with Rule 16 of Chapter XXlll of KER. Consequently,
  the total number of divisions in the school was reduced to 23
D from 31. In the Order dated 08.09.2009, the DIP had stated as
  follows:

          "The Headmaster is responsible for the admission,
           removals, and maintenance of records and for the
          supervision of work of subordinates. It is the duty of the
E         verification officer to verify the strength correctly and to
          unearth the irregularities. Due to the irregular fixation of
          staff, the State exchequer has incurred additional and
          unnecessary expenditure by way of pay and allowances for
          8 teachers and expenditure incurred in connection with
F         payment of various scholarships, lump-sum grant. noon-
          feeding, free books etc to the bogus students. These loss
          sustained to the Government will be recovered from the
          Headmaster of the school who alone is responsible for all
          the above irregularities."
G
          6. The DPI also directed to take further action to fix the
    liabilities and recover the amount from the Headmaster under
    intimation to DPI and the Super Check Officer, Kozhikode. The
    Headmaster and Manager of the school, aggrieved by the
    above-mentioned order, filed a revision petition before the State
H
 STATE OF KERALA v. PRESIDENT, PARENT TEACHER                 73
      ASSN. SNVUP [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Government. The High Court vide its judgment dated 7.12.2009         A
in Writ Petition (C) No. 35135 of ·2009 directed the State
Government to dispose of the revision petition.

     7. The higher level verification was also conducted in the
school with regard to the staff fixation for the year 2009-10 and    B
on verification, it was found that many of the students in the
school records were only bogus recordical admissions.
Following that, the AEO issued staff fixation order for the year
2009-10 vide proceedings dated 27.03.2010.

     8. Meanwhile, the President of the Parent Teachers              C
Association (Respondent No.1 herein) filed WP (C) No. 12285
of 2010 before the High Court seeking a direction to the AEO
to reckon the entire students present in the school on the 6th
working day and higher level verification of District Education
Officer (DEO) on 13.01.2010 for the purpose of staff fixation        D
for the year 2009-1 O and also for a declaration that the
exclusion of the students who were present on the day of higher
level verification on 13.01.2010 from the staff fixation order
2009-10 was illegal and also for other consequential reliefs.
                                                                     E
      9. Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the
Writ Petition on 07.04 2010 stating that the Parent Teachers
Association have no locus standi in challenging the staff fixation
order. The judgment was challenged in W.A No.1195 of 2010
by the President, Parent Teachers Association before the
                                                                     F
Division Bench of the High Court and the Bench passed an
interim order on 14.07.2010. The operative portion of the same
reads as follows:-

     "The inspection team has recorded that as many as 179
     students whose names and particulars are furnished,             G
     represent bogus admissions for record purposes. If
     admission register is manipulated by recording bogus
     admissions in the name of non- existing students or
     students of other institutions, we fell criminal action also
     is called for against the school authorities. Since appellant   H
    74         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 4 S.C.R.


A         has denied the findings in the inspection report, we. fell a
          police enquiry is called for the in the matter. We, therefore,
         direct the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur to constitute
         a team of Police Officers to go through Ext.P1, verify the
          registered maintained by the school authorities, take the
B        addresses as shown in the school records and conduct
         field enquiry as to whether the students are real persons
         and if so, whether they are really studying in this school or
         elsewhere. In other words, the result of the enquiry is to
         confirm to this court whether the students whose names
c        are in the record of the school are real and if so, whether
         they are students in this school or any other school."

    The Bench also directed to the Superintendent of Police to
    submit his report within one month.

D      10. The Superintendent of Police, following the direction
  given by the High Court, constituted a team under the leadership
  of the Circle Inspector of Police, Valappad and the team
  conducted detailed enquiry in respect of all the matters directed
  to be examined by the police. The Superintendent of Police
E submitted the report dated 20.09.2010 which reads as follows:

         "On the enquiry about the 187 students (179+8) which were
         alleged as bogus admissions as per Ext.P1, it is revealed
         that only 72 students were studied in S.N.V.U.P. School
         during the period 2008- 09 and 80 students were studied
F        in some other schools. The addresses of 23 students have
         not been traced out even with the help of postman of the
         concerned area. On the enquiry it is also revealed that 4
         students vide the admission Nos. 13008, 11875, 12883
         and 13876 mentioned in Ext.P1, have not been studied
G        anywhere during that period.
         The details of the 187 students, revealed in the enquiry are
         mentioned below:-

H
STATE OF KERALA v. PRESIDENT, PARENT TEACHER                75
     ASSN. SNVUP [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
 1. Actual No. of students studied in SNVUP                        A
  School, Thalikulam during 2008-2009                      72

 2. No. of Students studied in some other schools          80

 3. No. of students whose address have not been
 trace out                                                 23      B

 4. No. of students have not been studied anywhere         04

  5. No. of students removed from the rolls. Immediately
  after strength inspection                              08        c
  Total                                                    87


    The report of the enquiry, submitted by the Circle Inspector   D
    of Police, Valappad showing the details of each students
    is also produced herewith."

      11. The Division Bench of the High Court after perusing
the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police found that    E
neither the finding of the DPI based on inspections by Super
Check Cell nor the claim of the Parent Teachers Association
was correct since the police had found that at least 72 out of
187 students declared bogus by the DPI were real students of
the school. The High Court, therefore, concluded manipulation
by the school management was obvious, though not to the            F
extent found by the Super Check Cell based on which DPI had
passed the impugned order. The Division Bench expressed
anguish that the management had included 80 students
studying in other schools as students of the present school. It
was also noticed that as many as 23 students could not be          G
traced by the police with the help of the postman, were also
 included in the register.

    12. The Division Bench concluded that since the Super
Check Cell, the Education Department lacked the investigating      H
     76        SUP.REME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 4 S.C.R.


 A skill or the authority to collect information from the field, it would
   be appropriate that the verification of actual students in all the
   aided schools in the State would be done through the police.
   Holding so, the High Court gave the following direction:

B          "We, therefore, feel as in this case Police should be
           entrusted to assist the Education Department by
           conducting enquiry about the actual a_nd real students
           studying in every aided school in the State and pass on
           the same to the Education Department for them to fix or
           re-fix the staff strength based on the data furnished by the
c          Police. We, therefore, direct the Secretary, Department of
          Education, to get verification of the actual students studying
           in all the aided schools in the State done through the
          police authorities and take appropriate action. It would be
          open to the Government to consider photo or finger
D         identification of the students for avoiding manipulation in
          the school registers. The Government is directed to
          complete the process by the end of this academic year and
          file a report in this court."

E        13. The State of Kerala, aggrieved by the various
  directions given by the Division Bench, has preferred this
  appeal. Ms. Liz Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the
  State of Kerala submitted that the High Court was not justified
   in giving a direction to the Secretary, Education Department
F in entrusting the task to State Police for verification of actual
  students' strength in all the aided schools, while the enquiry is
  being conducted by the Education Department. Learned
  counsel submitted that Kerala Education Act and Rules did not
  prescribe any mechanism for conducting enquiries by the police
G at the time of staff fixation. The method to be adopted in the
  fixation of staff in various schools is prescribed under Chapter
  XXlll of KER and police have no role. The Rules empower the
  AEO, the DEO and the Super Check Cell et~. to conduct
  enquiries but not by the police. Learned counsel also pointed
H out that the presence of the police personnel in the aided
STATE OF KERALA v. PRESIDENT, PARENT TEACHER                  77
     ASSN. SNVUP [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

schools in the States would not only cause embarrassment to A
the students studying in the school but would also cast wrong
impression on the minds of the students about the conduct of
their Headmaster, teachers and staff of the school.

      14. We notice that the State itself had admitted in the
                                                                     8
petition that there should be a better mechanism to ascertain
the number of students in the aided schools which could be
done by finger printing or any other modern system so that the
students could be properly identified and staff fixation could be
done on the basis of relevant data. We, therefore, directed the
State to evolve a better mechanism to overcome situations like C
the one which has occurred in the school. Fact finding
 authorities have categorically found that the school authorities
 had made bogus admissions and made wrong recording of
 attendance which led to the irregular and illegal fixation of staff
 strength of the school for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10.           D

     15. An additional affidavit has been filed by the State of
Kerala stating that the Government after much thought and
deliberations formulated a scientific method to resolve the issue
emanating from staff fixation orders every year. The affidavit E
says that the number of students in the school can be
determined through Unique Identification Card (UID) technology
and the number of divisions could be arrived at on the basis of
revised pupil teacher ratio. Further, it is also pointed out that
after implementation of UID as a part of scientific package, the F
government will remand the matter of identification of bogus
admission to the DPI for considering issues afresh after
corroborating the findings of Super Check Cell with UID details
of the students. The State has issued a circular No. NEP (3)
66183/2011 dated 12.10.2011 which, according to the State, G
would take care of such situations happening in various aided
schools in the State.

      16. We are of the view even though the Division Bench
 was not justified in directing police intervention, the situation
 that has unfolded in this case is the one that we get in many       H
     78        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A    aided schools in the State. Many of the aided schools in the
     State, though not all, obtain staff fixation order through bogus
     admissions and misrepresentation, of facts. Due to the irregular
     fixation of staff, the State exchequer incurs heavy financial
     burden by way of pay and allowances. The State has also to
s    expend public money in connection with the payment of various
     scholarships, lump-sum grant, noon-feeding, free books etc. to
     the bogus students.

         17. A great responsibility is, therefore, cast on the General
    Education Department to curb such menace which not only
C burden the State exchequer but also will give a wrong signal
   to the society at large. The Management and the Headmaster
   of the school should be a role model to the young students
   studying in their schools and if themselves indulge in such
   bogus admissions and record wrong attendance of students for
D unlawful gain, how they can imbibe the guidelines of honesty,
   truth and values in life to the students. We are, however, of the
  view that the investigation by the police with regard to the
  verification of the school admission, register etc., particularly
  with regard to the admissions of the students in the aided
E schools will give a wrong signal even to the students studying
  in the school and the presence of the police itself is not
  conducive to the academic atmosphere of the schools. In such
  circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the directions given
  by the Division Bench for police intervention for verification of
F the students' strength in all the aided schools.

       18. We are, however, inclined to give a direction to the
  Education Department, State of Kerala to forthwith give effect
  to a circular dated 12.10.2011 to issue UID Card to all the
  school children and follow the guidelines and directions
G contained in their circular. Needless to say, the Government can
  always adopt, in future, better scientific methods to curb such
  types of bogus admissions in various aided schools.

         19. We, however, find no reason to interfere with the
H   direction given by the DPI to take further action to fix the
STATE OF KERALA v. PRESIDENT, PARENT TEACHER                 79
     ASSN. SNVUP [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

liabiiities for the irregularity committed in the school for the    A
years 2008-09 and 2009-10, for Which the appeal is pending
before the State Government. The State Government will
consider the appeal and take appropriate decision in
accordance with law, if it is still pending. Appeal is allowed as
above without any order as to costs.                                8
8.8.8.                                         Appeal allowed.