JUDGMENT P. Subramonian Poti, J. 1. There are two petitioners in this Original Petition. The first of them is the Manager of the M.V.U.P. School, Chowara and the second is an Upper Primary School Assistant in that school. In the academic year 1971-72 the number of class divisions in the M.V.U.P. School was increased from. 4 to 5 on the basis of the student strength and the 5th post of Upper Primary School Assistant was filled up by appointing the second petitioner with effect from 15th July 1971. Such appointment was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer. The second petitioner continued in that post in the next year also. In the year 1972-73 the Assistant Educational Officer fixed the staff strength of the school on the basis of six class divisions thereby sanctioning one more division in that year. Therefore the petitioner who had been appointed to the 5th division so sanctioned continued and the 6th post of the Upper Primary School Assistant was filled up by appointing one Satheeshakumar. That too was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer. Later Satheeshakumar left the service of the school as he obtained appointment in a Government School and one Lilly Sukritham was appointed in his place. There appears to have been some enquiries thereafter as to the real student strength in that school. As a result of this, the District Educational Officer, Neyyattinkara visited the school on 22nd September 1972. It appears that he instructed the Assistant Educational Officer to make such visit to the school in order to verify the attendance. Actually it is seen from the counter-affidavit that the following visits were made and the result was as indicated below: Date of visit Standard-war attendance V VI VII 28-9-1972 46 50 54 19-10-1972 39 36 51 31-10-1972 42 50 50 9-11-1972 47 50 55 It would appear that the Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum was not satisfied with the inspection conducted by the Assistant Educational Officer and therefore he is said to have directed the Vigilance Officer in his office to verify the attendance in the school and to report. The Vigilance Officer visited the school on 2nd January 1973 along with the Assistant Educational Officer. The Vigilance Officer visited the school on 2nd January 1973 along with the Assistant Educational Officer. The roll strength and verified attendance of pupil in that school were as follows: Standard Roil Strength Verified attendance V A 29 19 B -- 55 -- 39 26 20 VI A 28 24 B -- 53 -- 42 25 18 VII A 27 26 B -- 57 -- 52 30 26 On the basis that the above student strength justified only one division each for standards V and VI and two divisions for standard VII, the Director of Public Instruction passed Ext. P-6 order dated 21st February 1973. The Vigilance Officer had reported to the Director of Public Instruction about the student strength based on which report this action was evidently taken by the Director. In the counter- affidavit also this is stated. Paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit particularly states that the extraordinary fall in attendance justified the reduction in the number of divisions. Of course, that it was the Vigilance Officer report that ultimately caused Ext. P-6 order goes without saying because the Vigilance Officer was directed to inspect the school when it was found that the second respondent inspection was not satisfactory. This is what is stated in the counter-affidavit itself. Therefore the order passed by the Director of Public Instruction is based upon materials collected by him by the inspection reports. 2. As a result of Ext. P-6 two divisions of the school were reduced and the second petitioner thereby had to be displaced for that year. It is the propriety of Ext. P-6 order that is under challenge in this petition. 3. May be on the merits the Director of Public Instruction has reason to say that the reduced strength justified only the reduced number of divisions. But the question here is whether the Director of Public Instruction had authority to pass Ext. P-6 order. That is the question urged before me by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. 3. May be on the merits the Director of Public Instruction has reason to say that the reduced strength justified only the reduced number of divisions. But the question here is whether the Director of Public Instruction had authority to pass Ext. P-6 order. That is the question urged before me by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Rule 12E of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules deals with revision of staff fixation and that rule reads: "12 E. Revision of staff fixation by the Director: The Director may on his own motion or otherwise call for the records of the orders relating to fixation of staff strength for a school year during the course of that school year and revise the same : Provided that an order affecting the interest of a person shall not be passed under these rules unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such orders."� Rule 15 of the same Chapter deals with the power of the Educational Officers to refix the staff strength and that rule reads: "15. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, if Educational Officers are satisfied for valid and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing that the fixation of staff strength was obtained by bogus admission or attendance or by fraud or misrepresentation, and the like the Educational Officers shall be competent to refix the staff strength at any time during the course of the year: Provided that no order under this rule shall be issued without notice to the parties who are likely to be affected thereby."� These rules must be read independently, one conferring power upon the Educational Officers to refix the staff strength if they find that the staff strength fixed was on account of figures of bogus admission or attendance or by reason of fraud or misrepresentation practised. That power is to be considered to be independent of the power vested in the Director of Public Instruction to revise an order relating to fixation of staff strength. Normally conflict between rules is not to be assumed. The revisional power, while it extends to revising the order fixing the staff strength on grounds other than those mentioned in rule 15 of Chapter XXIII and therefore wider in its scope, is narrower in another sense. Normally conflict between rules is not to be assumed. The revisional power, while it extends to revising the order fixing the staff strength on grounds other than those mentioned in rule 15 of Chapter XXIII and therefore wider in its scope, is narrower in another sense. In the matter of refixation of the strength under rule 15 of Chapter XXIII the Educational Officers can gather materials to examine whether the admission figures shown by the management on which the Educational Officer had acted were bogus, whether the attendance shown was real and further whether there was fraud or misrepresentation. These are matters which are normally capable of verification only with reference to other material that may be gathered and therefore in exercising power under this rule the Educational Officers have power to collect such materials. But the scope of rule 12E of Chapter XXIII is limited, for, the rule only enables the Director of Public Instruction to call for the records of the orders relating to fixation of staff strength and revise the same. By its very nature the rule indicates that the power is to peruse the records and if, on the records, any irregularity or impropriety is found, to revise the staff fixation. In other words, it is not for the Director to collect materials outside the records of the case and to revise on the basis of such materials. In an enquiry under rule 12E of Chapter XXIII, therefore, the Director of Public Instruction must be strictly confined to the records which culminated in the order fixing the staff' strength and the question of revision should depend only on such material and not any extraneous matters which may come to his notice in any manner. 5. If this be the scope of revisional power under rule 12E, it goes without saying that Ext. P-6 order cannot be sustained. That is because, the Director seems to have considered the result of the subsequent inspections by the Assistant Educational Officer, was not satisfied even with such inspections, deputed his own Vigilance Officer, got his inspection report and on the figures disclosed in such inspection report, revised the staff fixation order. This is certainly not an examination of the records relating to the fixation of staff strength and is therefore beyond the scope of revision provided in rule 12E of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules. 6. This is certainly not an examination of the records relating to the fixation of staff strength and is therefore beyond the scope of revision provided in rule 12E of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules. 6. There were occasions for courts to examine similar rules. One of the earliest cases where a similar rule was considered by the Supreme Court was that in State of Kerala v. M. Appukutty (1963) 14 S.T.C.242). That was a case which arose from Kerala. The question that was considered was the scope of the revisional power under section 12 of the Madras General Sales tax Act, 1939 and the power to re-open an assessment under rule 17 of the Madras General Salestax Rules, 1939. Section 12 (2) of the Act enabled the Deputy Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded under the provisions of the Act by any officer subordinate to him in certain cases. Rule 17 enabled the assessing authority or the licensing authority, as the case may be, to determine to the best of his judgment the turnover which has escaped assessment at any time within 3 years next succeeding that to which the tax or licence fee relate. The scope of these two different powers arose for consideration before the Supreme Court and referring to the power under section 12 (2) the court said : "Therefore the Deputy Commissioner was not in the absence of any substantive proceeding for exercise of revisional powers competent to assess escaped turnover. But the power to assess escaped turnover does not arise out of the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising revisional jurisdiction the Deputy Commissioner would be restricted to the examination of the record for determining whether the order of assessment was according to law."� The same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in subsequent decisions. The same could be said of the scope of rule 12E of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules. 7. In the view I have taken of the exercise of power under rule 12E by the Director of Public Instruction, Ext. P-6 order has to be found as incompetent and it has to be quashed. I do so. Naturally the order passed by the Government in revision, Ext. P-8, also stands quashed.