Page 1

1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 958           OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9162 of 2011)

State of Kerala and others …..  Appellants

Versus

President, Parent Teacher Assn. SNVUP and others … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We are in this appeal concerned with the question 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

Page 2

2

schools in the State with the assistance of the police and to take  

appropriate action.

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 12 of Chapter XXIII of Kerala Education  

Rules  (KER).   Later,  based  on  a  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.  The strength verified by the Super Check  

Cell  was  not  sufficient  for  allowing  the  divisions  and  posts  

sanctioned by the AEO.  The Head Master of the School, however,  

stated in writing that the shortfall  of attendance on the day of  

inspection was due to “Badar 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 school on 16.12.2008.  Verification could not be

Page 3

3

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  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),  

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. III and  

consequent posts of 5 LPSAs, 3 UPSAs in the school during 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 Headmaster was not

Page 4

4

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 as per Rule 12E(3) read with Rule 16  

of  Chapter  XXIII,  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 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 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 physical presence of 179 students could

Page 5

5

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 XXIII of KER.  

Consequently,  the  total  number  of  divisions  in  the  school  was  

reduced to 23 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 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  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.”

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-

Page 6

6

mentioned  order,  filed  a  revision  petition  before  the  State  

Government.  The High Court vide its judgment dated 7.12.2009  

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  

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 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 for the year 2009-10 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

Page 7

7

staff  fixation  order  2009-10  was  illegal  and  also  for  other  

consequential reliefs.

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  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,  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 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  addresses  as  shown  in  the  school  records  and  conduct field enquiry as to whether the students are

Page 8

8

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 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.

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 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  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 anywhere  during that period.

Page 9

9

The  details  of  the  187  students,  revealed  in  the  enquiry are mentioned below:- 1. Actual No. of students studied in SNVUP  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

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

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

----- Total 187

----- The  report  of  the  enquiry,  submitted  by  the  Circle  Inspector  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  

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

Page 10

10

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 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 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 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:

“We, therefore, feel  as in this case Police should be  entrusted  to  assist  the  Education  Department  by  conducting enquiry about the actual and real students  studying in every aided school in the State and pass  on the same to the Education Department for them to

Page 11

11

fix  or  re-fix  the  staff  strength  based  on  the  data  furnished  by  the  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 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.”

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  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 at the time of staff fixation.  

The  method  to  be  adopted  in  the  fixation  of  staff  in  various  

schools is prescribed under Chapter XXIII of KER and police have

Page 12

12

no role.   The Rules empower the AEO, the DEO and the Super  

Check  Cell  etc.  to  conduct  enquiries  but  not  by  the  police.  

Learned counsel also pointed out that the presence of the police  

personnel in the aided schools in the States would not only cause  

embarrassment to 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 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 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.

Page 13

13

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 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 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,  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 aided schools

Page 14

14

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 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  

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 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 schools will give a wrong

Page 15

15

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 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  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 direction  

given by the DPI to take further action to fix the liabilities for the  

irregularity committed in the school  for 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

Page 16

16

take  appropriate  decision  in  accordance  with  law,  if  it  is  still  

pending.   Appeal  is  allowed as  above without  any order  as  to  

costs.

………………………….J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

………………………….J. (Dipak Misra)

 New Delhi, February 6, 2013