JUDGMENT V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. While the petitioner was working as the permanent Headmaster of an aided lower primary school by name A.M.L.P.S., Perumpadappa, the Manager of the institution placed him under suspension for a period of 14 days by an order passed on the 16th January, 1967. The Manager forwarded a copy of the suspension order to the Assistant Educational Officer and requested for permission to keep the petitioner under suspension beyond the period of 15 days under sub-r.(7) of R.67 of Chap.14(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959. The Assistant Educational Officer, Valapad the 1st respondent conducted a preliminary inquiry and came to the conclusion that there was no prima facie case against the petitioner warranting his being placed under suspension. He, therefore, passed orders on the 27th January, 1967 directing the Manager to reinstate the petitioner as the Headmaster of the school. By a separate order passed on 28-1-1967 the 1st respondent refused permission to the Manager to keep the petitioner under suspension beyond 15 days. This communication also contained a direction to the Manager to reinstate the petitioner with immediate effect. The Manager of the School challenged the said order of the Assistant Educational Officer by filing O. P. No. 324 of 1967 before this Court. That writ petition was disposed of by this court by judgment dated 31-5-1967 a direction to the 2nd respondent, namely the District Educational Officer to conduct an inquiry into the charges against the petitioner and to pass appropriate consequential orders in the light of the finding which may be arrived at as a result of the said inquiry. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent conducted a detailed inquiry against the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not guilty of any of the charges levelled against him. In view of the said finding the 2nd respondent passed orders on 1-7-1967 directing the Manager of the school to reinstate the petitioner forth with to the post of Headmaster. 2. Thereupon, the Manager of the school approached this Court again by filing O. P. No. 2135 of 1967 challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent That writ petition was dismissed by this Court in April, 1970. 2. Thereupon, the Manager of the school approached this Court again by filing O. P. No. 2135 of 1967 challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent That writ petition was dismissed by this Court in April, 1970. All through this time the petitioner has been kept out of duty in the school by the Manager notwithstanding the orders passed by the Assistant Educational Officer and by the 2nd respondent directing his immediate reinstatement but the salary and allowances were being disbursed to him by the department on the strength of the provision contained in R.67(7). 3. In the meantime, the 2nd respondent addressed the communication Ex. P6 to the 1st respondent informing the latter that since the petitioner was not actually performing the duties of Headmaster he need not be paid the supervision allowance attached to the Headmaster's post. The petitioner appears to have made representations to the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction on 7-9-1968 complaining against the directions so issued by the 2nd respondent, That was followed up by another representation evidenced by Ex. P7 dated 13-9-1968 which the petitioner submitted to the Regional Deputy Director through the Assistant Educational Officer. According to the petitioner, no reply has so far been given to him by the Regional Deputy Director to either of those representations. While matters stood thus, the 1st respondent by his letter Ex. P8 dated 12-5-'69 called upon the petitioner to refund an amount of Rs. 446.60 as being excess emoluments paid to him within ten days of the receipt of the said communication failing which it will be recovered from the petitioner, pay in nine instalments commencing with his pay bill for May, 1969. It is stated in Ex.P8 that an amount of Rs. 174.85 was liable to be recovered from the petitioner by way of Headmaster's allowance paid to him from 16-1-1967 to 30-6-1968 & that a further sum of Rs. 487.75 is to be recovered by way of excess dearness allowance disbursed to him calculating the dearness allowance at enhanced rates wrongly taking into account the amount of Headmaster's allowance also for the period from 16-1-'67 to 30-6-1968. It is also mentioned in Ex. P8 that an arrear claim which was due to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 216/- stood adjusted against the aforesaid liability and that the amount of Rs. It is also mentioned in Ex. P8 that an arrear claim which was due to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 216/- stood adjusted against the aforesaid liability and that the amount of Rs. 446.60 which was directed thereunder to be refunded had been arrived at after making such adjustment. The letter Ex. P6 dated 13-7-1968 sent by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent is relied on in Ex. P8 as the authority for directing recovery of the Headmaster's allowance. 4. The petitioner has come up to this court with this writ petition seeking to quash Exs. P6 and P8. The only question arising for decision is whether the action taken by respondents 1, 2 and 4 for directing the recovery from the petitioner of the amounts disbursed to him as Headmaster's allowance and extra dearness allowance computed on the basis of the computation of his total emoluments by including the Headmaster's allowance is authorised and legal. 5. Counsel for the petitioner is well founded in his contention that R.67(7) of the Kerala Education Rules entitles a teacher, who is wrongfully kept under suspension by the Manager in spite of directions having been given by the competent educational officer for his reinstatement, to be paid salary and allowances as if he is working in the school as a teacher or .Headmaster without being suspended. It is agreed before me by counsel on both side that the decision of this case depends on the interpretation to be placed on the provisions contained in R.67(7) of Chap.14(A) and R.1 of Chap.26 of the Kerala Education Rules and hence it is necessary to extract the relevant portions of these rules. R.67(7) of Chap.14(A) in so far as it is material for the present purpose is in these terms: "If on such investigation the authority is satisfied that there was no valid ground for the suspension he may direct the Manager to reinstate the teacher with effect from the date of suspension, and thereupon the teacher shall forthwith be reinstated by the Manager. If the teacher is not reinstated and no satisfactory cause is shown therefore the teacher shall be deemed to have been reinstated with effect from the date of suspension. If the teacher is not reinstated and no satisfactory cause is shown therefore the teacher shall be deemed to have been reinstated with effect from the date of suspension. It shall then be open to the department to disburse the pay and allowances to the teacher as if he were not suspended and recover the amount so disbursed from the manager." R.1(1) of Chap.26 on which reliance is being placed by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents reads: "Teachers of Aided Lower Primary, Upper Primary and Training Schools shall be paid the scale of pay applicable to teachers of Government Lower Primary, Upper Primary and Training Schools. Headmasters of Aided Lower Primary and Upper Primary schools shall be eligible for supervision allowance applicable to the Headmasters of Government Lower and Upper Primary Schools." In my opinion, what R.67(7) lays down is that in cases where a direction is given to the Manager by the Educational Officer under the said sub-rule to reinstate a teacher who has been placed under suspension and the Manager fails to comply with it and no satisfactory cause is shown for such default, the teacher is to be deemed to have been reinstated with effect from the date of his suspension irrespective of the fact as to whether or not he had actually been admitted to work in the school during any portion of the period that has elapsed subsequent to the date of suspension. A legal fiction is thus introduced by the sub-rule that the teacher has been functioning in the school uninterruptedly from the date of suspension notwithstanding his having been, as a matter of fact, wrongfully kept out of duty. That this deeming provision has been introduced for the purpose of enabling the department to disburse to such teachers the pay and allowances is discernible from the provision contained in the later part of the same sub-rule to the effect that it shall be open to the department to disburse the pay and allowances to such a teacher as if he were not suspended and to recover the amount so disbursed from the Manager. 6. Coming now to R.I of Chap. XXVI, all that this rule says is only that teachers of aided lower primary, upper primary and training schools shall be paid the scale of pay applicable to teachers of corresponding Govt. 6. Coming now to R.I of Chap. XXVI, all that this rule says is only that teachers of aided lower primary, upper primary and training schools shall be paid the scale of pay applicable to teachers of corresponding Govt. schools and that the Headmasters of aided lower primary and upper primary schools shall be eligible for supervision allowance applicable to their counterparts in Govt. schools. I do not see any thing in this rule which is of any assistance to the respondents for sustaining the legality of the orders Exs. P7 and P8. It is not contended before me that there is any rule applicable to Headmasters in Government lower primary school which disentitles a Headmaster for payment of supervisory allowance during a period when he is to be deemed in law to be actually functioning in that post even though he had been in fact wrongfully kept under suspension. 7. Once there is a legal fiction introduced by a statute or a rule it is the duty of the authority administering the statute including the court to give it full effect within the sphere in which it is intended to operate, subject only to the restriction that it is to be employed only for the purposes sought to be served by the particular statutory provision. The very purpose of the introduction of the fiction by sub-r.(7) being to enable the department to disburse the pay to such a teacher as if he had not been suspended, the fiction has to be fully applied in the matter of effecting a fixation of the pay and allowances to be disbursed to the teacher under the said rule. If that be the correct principle as I hold it to be, it is manifest that the 2nd respondent was wholly wrong in directing that the petitioner need not be paid the supervision allowance attached to the post of Headmaster during the period from 16-1-1967 to 30-6-1968 on the ground that he had not been actually doing the supervision work of Headmaster. For the same reason, it has to be held that the direction for refund and recovery given in Ex. For the same reason, it has to be held that the direction for refund and recovery given in Ex. P 8 is also illegal since the emoluments which the petitioner is entitled to draw will have to be calculated on the basis of the provision contained in R.67(7) that he should be deemed to have been continuing in service uninterruptedly without being suspended. 8. It follows from the foregoing discussion that Exs. P6 and P 8 have to be quashed. I do so. The respondents are directed to disburse to the petitioner his arrears of salary including the amounts mentioned in Ex. P 8 as having been adjusted by way of recovery. The original petition is allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. There will be no direction regarding costs.