Officers Of State's General Education Dept Not Aware Of Relevant Laws, Unprecedented Increase In Litigation: Kerala HC Mulls Expert Committee

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday suggested the General Education Department of the State to constitute an expert committee to address issues plaguing its internal functioning such as recruitment, database management, etc.

It noted apparent absence of accurate data on students, instructors, and non-teaching personnel in the State's Government and Aided Schools, eventually leading to increased disputes and consequential litigation.

It suggested the Department to form a committee comprising former DGEs with experience, experts from State Government initiatives such as KITE (Kerala Infrastructure and Technology for Education), Digital University Kerala, Indian Institution of Information Technology and Management-Kerala and legal professionals with practical knowledge. 

Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. was of the view that a substantial amount of litigation can be avoided if the department implements some improvements by leveraging the power of information and communication technology. It said,

...I cannot help but notice that litigation challenging orders issued by the General Education Department have reached unprecedented levels...Even at the highest levels, officers are either unprepared or uninformed of the relevant Rules and the law interpreted by this Court based on the provisions of the law...Having sat in this Court for well over six months, I believe that if the Department implements some improvements by leveraging the power of information and communication technology, a substantial amount of litigation can be avoided.

The present case was instituted by a teacher over dispute with respect to approval of her appointment, where the order issued by the government was found to be against the law settled by the Court and previous Government Orders. The Court opined that the officials must be directed to adhere to the applicable rules and Government orders when considering statutory petitions and implementing their action in terms of the requirements of the Act.

In addition, the officials must be told unequivocally that they are obligated to guarantee strict conformity with the applicable Rules and Government Orders when considering statutory petitions and implementing their action in terms of the requirements of the Act.

Even though the Government of Kerala has established KITE to develop, promote and implement the modernization of State-owned or Government-aided educational institutions in Kerala and which is being retained to carry out staff fixation at Government/ Aided Schools in the State and to approve the hiring of teachers and that a portal called 'SAMANWAYA' has been established to facilitate this, the Court observed that the portals are not integrated seamlessly, and no steps have been taken to share data from other departments. 

If the data exchange between various Universities in the State and outside the State, other educational institutions, and certifying authorities, etc. is achieved, it would be a clean, efficient and transparent task to determine the qualifications of Teachers and Non-teaching staff without using paper documents, saving time and money and ensuring transparency, Justice Vijayaraghavan opined. 

The Court further pointed out instances where intervention is required expeditiously, opining that if proper measures are taken, it would ease the way in which the Department functions:

• Database of Students

Creation of a failsafe database of all children pursuing education in the State, including those attending Government, Aided, Recognized, Unaided, and Private schools, and link them to the schools at which they are enrolled. Further directing the department to evaluate if biometric or other attendance systems can be implemented in schools for students and teachers and whether the same can be linked with the portal maintained by the Department of Education.

• Database of Teachers

The Court directed the State to refine and update the database of all teachers to whom the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules apply, including the date of their entry into service, their qualifications, and any other information that may provide those teachers with advantage under the Act and the Rules. Furthermore, the database of teachers, the Staff Fixation Orders, the Seniority List, and Fitness Certificates of School buildings are to be compulsorily linked to the portal maintained by the Department of Education, and separate dashboards have to be provided to all the stakeholders. 

• Online depository of Certificates, Diplomas etc.

As envisioned by the National Academic Depository (NAD), the Court directed that there should be an online repository of all academic awards, such as certificates, diplomas, degrees, mark sheets, etc., duly digitized and deposited by academic institutions/boards/eligibility assessment bodies, etc., so that there is no controversy regarding the acquisition of their qualifications. The Court observed that by establishing an error-free and accurate database for individual educational agencies and corporate, educational agencies, as envisioned by the Act and Rules, the majority of potential seniority conflicts can be avoided.

The Court added that steps should be taken to provide access to certificates and Diplomas from the Universities through Application Program Interfaces (API) so that the Educational authorities shall be aware of the qualifications of the teachers/non-teaching staff.

• Consideration of Statutory Appeal/ Revisions 

Noting that the majority of the cases brought before the Court are for the issuance of directives to the revisional/ appellate authority to accept and dispose of outstanding cases before the said authority, the Court opined that even though statutory petitions are filed electronically, there is no clear process to indicate the authority before whom the matter is pending, whether notice has been issued and when it is likely to be heard. Therefore the Court directed the General Educational Department to take immediate action to increase the transparency of the posting and hearing of these matters by posting updated hearing dates and petitions online. By adopting methods like e-office, and the file movement system in the office of the AEO/DEO/DDE, the Court opined that efficiency can be achieved.

• Prompt finalization of Seniority Lists

Following Rule 35 Note 2 of Chapter XIV A, the Court directed that a seniority list must be compiled and submitted by the 31st of May of each academic year. Opining that several of these disputes can be avoided if the finalization is carried out before the deadline. The department may do well to make the submission of the same compulsory. The Court added that the data must be made accessible online, and the concerned parties must be able to examine the same.

• Issues about the functioning of the Officers and their failure to adhere to the rules

The Court opined that officers are to be provided with adequate training to do their work in terms of the Rules as omission on the part of the officers to conduct the disciplinary proceedings consequent to the detection of bogus admission in terms of the Rules is yet another reason for the burgeoning of litigation.

Thereby, the Court adjourned the matter till 25th November, allowing the authorities to respond to the aforesaid suggestions.

The Writ Petition was moved by the petitioner challenging the refusal of the Regional Deputy Director, Higher Secondary Education, to grant approval of her appointment as an HSST (Hindi) at St. Sebastian HSS School.

The petitioner was working as HSA (Hindi) in the school, and when a vacancy in the post of HSST arose due to the retirement of a teacher, the Manager promoted the petitioner to the post of HSST (Hindi). The request for approval was rejected, holding that the selection was carried out without constituting a Section Board consisting of a Government Nominee, and therefore it was against the extant contained in Chapter XXXII of Kerala Education Rules and orders.

To ensure compliance with the directions issued, the Manager undertook a fresh selection after constituting a committee and issued fresh appointment order. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up before the government, the Regional Deputy Director granted approval for the appointment of the petitioner as HSST (Hindi) with effect from 25th March 2017. However, since the appointment of the petitioner for the period from 2016 to 2017 still remained unapproved, the manager preferred a revision petition seeking approval from the initial date, but it was dismissed by the Deputy Secretary. Thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court. 

The Court, in the present case, observed that the impugned order cannot be sustained and thereby quashed the order citing that in a previous pronouncement of the Court it is settled that while making by-transfer appointments, there is no need to constitute a selection committee by including a Government Nominee. All that is required is for the Manager to ensure that the appointment is in terms of the Rules. 

Case Title: Jollyamma V. Thomas v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 544

Click Here To Read/Download The Order