JUDGMENT K.K. Narendran, J. 1. The question that arises for consideration in this Original Petition relates to the interpretation of rule 15 of chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 which gives power to the Educational Officer to re-fix the staff strength of a school if, in the opinion of the Educational Officer, the fixation of staff strength already made was obtained by bogus admission, or attendance or by fraud or misrepresentation and the like. 2. The petitioners in this Original Petition are two High School Assistants appointed in the Poovachal Panchayat High School, Poovachal. Their grievance is against Ext. P-8 order of the 2nd respondent-District Educational Officer, Neyyattinkara by which in exercise of the powers under rule 15, chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 the 2nd respondent re-fixed the staff strength of the Panchayat High School, Poovachal by reducing two posts of High School Assistants and one post of High School Assistant (malayalam). The 1st petitioner was appointed as H.S.A. from 30th July 1971 and the 2nd petitioner from 1st June 1971 and their appointments were duly approved by the 2nd respondent as per the endorsements in Exts. P-1 and P-2. For the year 1971-72, there were 15 class divisions and 15 posts of H.S.As. and this is borne out by Ext. P-3 staff fixation order for that year. As per Ext. P-4 order for the year 1972-73 also, 15 class divisions and 15 posts of H.S.As. are sanctioned to the school by the 2nd respondent. 3. It seems that the Director of Public Instruction received certain petitions alleging that 15 class divisions were got sanctioned for the school for the year 1972-73 on the basis of bogus attendance and that the actual strength of the school did not justify the sanction of 15 class divisions for the year 1972-73. The trouble started then and the Director of Public Instruction directed the Regional Deputy Director of public Instruction, Trivandrum to make a surprise inspection of the school. Accordingly, the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction made a surprise inspection on 6th October 1972 and verified the attendance. He reported that the large scale removal of pupils effected lead to the reasonable inference that there was a mala fide attempt to show inflated attendance on 28th June 1972. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent made another surprise visit to the school on 1st November 1972 and verified the attendance. He reported that the large scale removal of pupils effected lead to the reasonable inference that there was a mala fide attempt to show inflated attendance on 28th June 1972. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent made another surprise visit to the school on 1st November 1972 and verified the attendance. It was seen that 29 students were removed from Standard VIII, 25 from Standard IX and 5 from Standard X. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent issued notices to the Manager of the school and the petitioners in this Original Petition to show reasons why the staff strength of the school should not be re-fixed as per the verified attendance on 1st November 1972, the date of surprise visit of the 2nd respondent, Exts. P-6 and P-7 are the notices issued to the first and the second petitioners respectively. On receipt of the above notices, the petitioners filed this Original Petition. But, subsequently, the petitioners and the Manager filed objections before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent on 19th December 1972 issued Ext. P-8 order re-fixing the staff strength with effect from 19th December 1972 and reducing the post of High School Assistants from 15 to 13 and directing the relief of the juniormost teachers. Though in Exts. P-6 and P-7 notices there was an indication that an H.S.A. (Malayalam) post will also be reduced, in Ext. P-8 nothing is said about that. On receipt of Ext. P-8, the petitioners amended the Original Petition by CM.P. No. 1268 of 1973 and included the necessary grounds and appropriate reliefs against Ext. P-8 order also. It is seen from Ext. P-9 produced in the case that even before the issue of Ext. P-8 order reducing the number of divisions, the 2nd respondent on 27th November 1972 issued instructions withholding the salary of the petitioners. I am at a loss to understand how this was permissible because Ext. P-8 will be effective only from the date on which it was issued. It seems that this is sufficient reason for the petitioners to approach this Court direct without filing an appeal or moving a revision before the 1st respondent because the chances of getting Ext. P-8 order stayed in those proceedings were really very remote. So, the petitioners might have been relieved from the staff of the school in pursuance of Ext. It seems that this is sufficient reason for the petitioners to approach this Court direct without filing an appeal or moving a revision before the 1st respondent because the chances of getting Ext. P-8 order stayed in those proceedings were really very remote. So, the petitioners might have been relieved from the staff of the school in pursuance of Ext. P-8 had they not approached this Court by this Original Petition and obtained an interim stay of operation of Ext. P-8. 4. The petitioners have raised a number of contentions in the Original Petition. One of the contentions raised is that the relevant provisions in the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 make it clear that the fixation of staff strength after finalizing the number of divisions based on the effective strength of the class cannot be varied during that school year and rule 15, chapter XXIII of the Rules has nothing to do with the sanctioning of class divisions. Hence Ext. P-8 re-fixing the number of staff purporting to be under the above rule is illegal. The further contention is that there is finding in Ext. P-8 that the fixing of staff strength is by obtaining bogus admission, or attendance or by fraud or misrepresentation nor are there reasons recorded in writing for reaching such a conclusion, it is also said that the removal of pupils from the rolls is in accordance with rule 15, chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules and that cannot affect the sanction of the division on the basis of the effective strength arrived at at the time of the visit for strength verification by the 2nd respondent. It is also contended that rule 15 is arbitrary and violative of the rights granted under section 9 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the conferment of power in such wide terms as contained in rule 15 adversely affect the petitioners' rights. The contention in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent-State is that large scale removals of pupils from the rolls of the school have lead to the reasonable inference that there was a mala fide attempt to show inflated attendance on 28th June 1972, the date of verification of attendance for the purpose of staff fixation for the year 1972-73. It is further stated that such large scale removals were quite unusual. It is further stated that such large scale removals were quite unusual. In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit, it is pointed out that the provisions contained in rule 15, chapter XXIII of the Rules is notwithstanding anything contained in these rules" and so there is no substance in Ground No. A. of the Original Petition. The contention that rule 15, chapter XXIII is beyond the rule-making powers under section 36 is also denied. Section 36 (m) of the Act empowers the Government to make rules for all matters expressly required or allowed by the Act to be prescribed. There is no substance in the contention that no re-fixation can be made after August because rule 15 permits a re-fixation at any time during the year notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Education Rules. The only thing is a notice should be issued and there should be valid and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing. 5. It is pertinent to note that there is an indirect admission in para 9 of the counter-affidavit which runs thus: "Even if it is assumed that the admissions were not technically bogus the attendance on 28th June 1972 was a result of the deliberate effort on the part of the management or other interested parties to create an artificial inflation of attendance. Such a case will surely attract rule 15". The counter-affidavit concludes by stating that but for the inflated strength on 28th June 1972 the school would not have been eligible for 15 divisions and consequently the petitioners could not have continued in the school as teachers. 6. Rule 15, chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules reads: "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 re-fix the staff strength at any time during the course of the year: Provided that no order under this rule shall be issued without notices to the parties who are likely to be affected thereby". No doubt, the provisions of rule 15 are "notwithstanding anything contained in these rules". No doubt, the provisions of rule 15 are "notwithstanding anything contained in these rules". But for attracting rule 15, the Educational Officer must be satisfied for valid and sufficient reasons that the fixation of staff strength was obtained by bogus admission or attendance or by fraud or misrepresentation. It goes without saying that bogus admission can be there only if pupils who were not really in existence were admitted. When there is bogus admission, the attendance created by that will also be bogus attendance. Fraud or misrepresentation will be there if without actually admitting a pupil records are created as if that pupil was admitted and attendance marked in respect of that pupil even though that pupil never attended the school. Large scale removals of pupils from the rolls under rule 15, chapter VI of the Rules by themselves cannot attract rule 15, chapter XXIII. Large scale removals may be a reason to create a doubt in the mind of the Educational Officer or at the most to suspect bogus admission. To prove bogus admission the Educational Officer should go deep into the details of the matter and examine individual cases of pupils who are removed for long absence and for other reasons mentioned in rule 15, chapter VI. In this case, not a single case of removal is taken and examined to ascertain whether, as a matter of fact, such a pupil was ever in existence and whether he was actually admitted in the school before his name was entered in the rolls. Ext. P-8 order does not even indicate that the 2nd respondent made any such attempt. Without making such an enquiry into the individual cases of removal from the rolls, it cannot be said that the pupils removed from the rolls were really bogus admissions and they were shown on the rolls purposely to create attendance for getting strength which is more than the actual effective strength of the standard concerned. The reasoning that pupils who did not really want to continue their studies till the close of the year were made to attend classes for some days at the beginning of the year by itself cannot justify action under the rule. 7. For the reasons stated above, Ext. P-8 is quashed and the Original Petition is allowed. No costs.