Judgment :- Sreedharan, J. Writ petitioner in O.P.4052/1993 is the appellant. While working as Headmaster of UAHM Upper Primary School, Omanoor, under the management of the fourth respondent, he was placed under suspension pending enquiry. Manager sought sanction from the Assistant Educational Officer for placing the Headmaster under suspension beyond 15 days. Assistant Educational Officer declined to grant the required sanction for keeping the Headmaster under suspension beyond 15 days. Manager questioned that order of the Assistant Educational Officer in appeal before the District Educational Officer, presumably invoking the provisions contained in R.64 of Chapter XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules. By Ext.P A order dated 9-3-1993, District Educational Officer directed Assistant Educational Officer to give permission to the Manager for retaining the Headmaster (writ petitioner) under suspension beyond 15 days. This order of the District Educational Officer was challenged in O.P.4052/1993. Learned Single judge by judgment dated 7-4-1993 disposed of the same, observing: - "In the result I record the submission of the learned Advocate General that the order is passed under R.64 of Chapter XIV-A of K.E.R. and it is made clear that the petitioner can file an appeal against that order". The correctness of this decision is disputed by the appellant. 2. Rule 67 of Chapter XIV-A deals with provisions relating to suspension of teachers. As per that rule, the manager of an aided school may at any time place a teacher under suspension under the circumstances provided in that rule. This power of the manager is not unrestricted. At the first instance the manager can place the teacher under suspension only for a period of 15 days. If the teacher is to be continued undresses pension for a period exceeding 15 days, previous sanction of the educational authorities is mandatory. It is so provided as per the proviso to clause (7) of R.67. That proviso raids: - "Provided that no teacher shall be placed under suspension by the manager for. a. continuous period exceeding 15 days without the previous sanction of the Deputy Director (education) in the case of Headmasters of secondary schools and training schools and of the Educational Officer in other cases". 3. The steps to be taken by the manager in cases where the teacher is to be kept under suspension for a period exceeding 15 days is provided by clause (8) of R.67. 3. The steps to be taken by the manager in cases where the teacher is to be kept under suspension for a period exceeding 15 days is provided by clause (8) of R.67. According to that clause, where an order of suspension is passed by the manager he should on the same day report the matter to the Educational Officer, together with the reasons for keeping the teacher under suspension. Where the manager wants to keep the Headmaster of a secondary school or a training school under suspension, the matter must be reported to the Deputy Director of Education in addition to the concerned Educational Officer. In the case of Headmasters of secondary schools or training schools, the previous sanction should be granted by the Deputy Director of Education for keeping the delinquent Headmaster under suspension beyond 15 days. In the case of other teachers, the sanction is to be accorded by the concerned Educational Officer, i.e. in the case of High School Assistants, sanction is to be accorded by the District Educational Officer and in the case of Headmasters or teachers of Primary Schools, by the Assistant Educational Officer. Before giving this sanction, the concerned authority is to hold an investigation to get itself satisfied as to whether there exists valid grounds for keeping the delinquent teacher under suspension. In case the officer finds that there is no justifiable cause for keeping the teacher under suspension, Manager can be directed to reins late the teacher in service with effect from the date of suspension. In such a situation if the teacher is not reinstated by the manager, the teacher should be deemed to have been on duty. The department will then be entitled to disburse the pay and allowance of the teacher as if he were not under suspension. The amounts so disbursed to the teacher can be recovered from the amounts due to the manager. In cases where the concerned authority comes to the conclusion that there are valid grounds for keeping the teacher under suspension beyond 15 days, sanction can be accorded to the manager for the said purpose. 4. In the instant case the manager wanted to keep the writ petitioner, who was holding the post of Headmaster of an aided Primary School, under suspension beyond 15 days. 4. In the instant case the manager wanted to keep the writ petitioner, who was holding the post of Headmaster of an aided Primary School, under suspension beyond 15 days. For that purpose, he sought sanction from the Assistant Educational Officer, who is the competent authority to accord sanction. The Assistant Educational Officer, after conducting an investigation into the grounds of suspension, came to the conclusion here are no valid grounds for keeping the Headmaster under suspension. Accordingly, he directed the manager to reinstate the writ petitioner in service. Can this decision arrived at by the Assistant Educational Officer be treated as one falling within the purview of R.64 of Chapter XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules? 5. Rule 64 of Chapter XIV-Aof Kerala Education Rules states that an appeal shall lie to the District Educational Officer against the order of the Assistant Educational Officer in regard to any dispute between the teacher and the manager that might be referred to him. It also provides for a further appeal to the Director of Education against the order passed by the District Educational Officer. The learned Additional Advocate General-II appearing in the case canvassed for the position that the decision of the Assistant Educational Officer in the instant case, refusing to grant permission to the manager to keep the writ petitioner under suspension beyond 15 days, should come within the purview of R.64. It is contended by him that the Assistant Educational Officer was adjudicating on the dispute between the manager on the one hand and the headmaster on the other regarding the need to keep the Headmaster under suspension beyond 15 days. In this view, it is submitted that the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer is open to appeal before the District Educational Officer and subject to a further appeal to the Director. 6. Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A, as stated earlier, deals with the procedure to be followed for keeping a teacher under suspension beyond 15 days. As per that rule, Deputy Director of Education is the authority competent to accord sanction for keeping a Headmaster of a secondary school or a training school under suspension beyond 15 days. In the case of High School Assistants, the competent Educational Officer to give sanction is the District Educational Officer. As per that rule, Deputy Director of Education is the authority competent to accord sanction for keeping a Headmaster of a secondary school or a training school under suspension beyond 15 days. In the case of High School Assistants, the competent Educational Officer to give sanction is the District Educational Officer. In case the Deputy Director of Education or the District Educational Officer refuses to give sanction to the manager to keep the concerned teacher under suspension beyond 15 days, is it possible to envisage a dispute between the concerned teacher and the manager which will fall within the ambit of R.64? By no stretch of imagination can it be said that it will be a dispute between the manager and the teacher concerned, for such a dispute cannot be the subject matter of an appeal as provided under R.64. Deputy Director of Education and District Educational Officer arc not authorities whose orders are to be adjudicated upon by the Assistant Educational Officer. In such a situation it is not reasonable to take the view that when the educational officer refuses permission to keep a teacher under suspension beyond 15 days, a dispute will arise between the teacher and manager. Further if the argument advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General-II is to be accepted, it should be taken that where the Assistant Educational Officer refuses to grant sanction to the manager of an aided primary school to keep a teacher under suspension beyond 15 days under R.67(8) of Chapter XIV-A, then the Manager can challenge that order of the Assistant Educational Officer invoking the provisions of R.64. The refusal to grant permission to the manager to keep the teacher under suspension by the Deputy Director of Education or District Educational Officer under R.67(8) will certainly be outside the purview of R.64. In other words, orders passed by the Assistant Educational Officers under R.67(8) refusing sanction to the manager to keep the teacher under suspension beyond 15 days are to be taken as amenable to challenge by the manager before the District Educational Officer under R.64 of Chapter XIV¬A K.E.R. If the District Educational Officer or the Deputy Director of Education refuses to accord sanction to keep High School Assistant or the Headmaster of a secondary school or training school, as the case may be, beyond 15 days, the manager has no right of appeal invoking R.64. Such an interpretation regarding the scope of R.64 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. is not warranted. An interpretation, which makes certain types of orders falling under R.67(8) of Chapter XIV-A alone appealable under R.64 of the Chapter and others outside its ambit cannot be adopted. It is against all canons of interpretation. So, we are clear in our mind that the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer in the instant case refusing to accord sanction to the manager to keep the writ petitioner under suspension beyond 15 days is not an appealable order falling within the purview of R.64 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. 7. The above conclusion arrived at by us is fortified by the provision contained in R.79 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. That rule reads: - "A teacher may appeal against an order of suspension to the authority to which the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order is immediately subordinate. Where previous sanction for the continuance of suspension has been accorded then the appeal shall lie to the next higher authority to whom the authority who accorded sanction is subordinate". As per this rule, the teacher who has been placed under suspension by the manager can challenge that order in appeal before the Educational authority. In the case of a Headmaster or a teacher of a Primary School, appeal lies to the Assistant Educational Officer against the order of suspension passed by the manager. In case the Assistant Educational Officer accords sanction to the manager to keep the teacher under suspension beyond 15 days, then that teacher can question the said order in appeal before the District Educational Officer. Likewise, the High School Assistants and the> Headmasters of Secondary Schools and training schools can question the order of suspension passed by the manager before the District Educational Officer or the Deputy Director of Education, as the case may be. In their case, if sanction for continued suspension beyond 15 days is accorded by the District Educational Officer or the Deputy Director of Education, appeal lies to the next higher authority. The rule docs not take within its ambit a situation where the concerned educational authority refuses to accord sanction for keeping the teacher in continued suspension beyond 15 days. In their case, if sanction for continued suspension beyond 15 days is accorded by the District Educational Officer or the Deputy Director of Education, appeal lies to the next higher authority. The rule docs not take within its ambit a situation where the concerned educational authority refuses to accord sanction for keeping the teacher in continued suspension beyond 15 days. In other words, if the Educational Officer or the Deputy Director of Education, as the case may be, refuses to accord sanction to the concerned manager to keep the teacher under suspension beyond 15 days, that decision is not open to challenge in appeal by the manager. The manager has to resort to the revisional power of the Government under R.92 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. 8. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petition taking the view that the impugned order passed by the District Educational Officer is appealable. We find it difficult to endorse this view. District Educational Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal preferred by the manager against the order of the Assistant Educational Officer refusing to accord sanction to keep the writ petitioner under suspension beyond 15 days. If the manager wanted to challenge that order, he ought to have preferred a revision petition before Government. The appeal preferred by him before the District Educational Officer was incompetent. Consequently, we hold that Ext.P11 order passed by the District Educational Officer is one without jurisdiction. It has no legal validity. It has to be set aside. We do so. 9. Learned counsel representing the manager submitted that there are sufficient reasons for keeping the appellant under suspension beyond 15 days in view of the serious charges levelled against him. Pending enquiry into those charges if he is reinstated in service and he comes into possession of the records of the school, it will defeat the very enquiry. Taking into consideration this submission of the learned counsel, we pass the following directions - The manager is given two weeks time from today to prefer a revision against Ext.PZ order (Order No.B.10199/92 dated 14-12-1992) passed by the Assistant Educational Officer, area code under R.92 of Chapter XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules. Taking into consideration this submission of the learned counsel, we pass the following directions - The manager is given two weeks time from today to prefer a revision against Ext.PZ order (Order No.B.10199/92 dated 14-12-1992) passed by the Assistant Educational Officer, area code under R.92 of Chapter XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules. If such a revision is filed, it will be entertained by the Government and will be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law, after affording the writ petitioner-Headmaster a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Along with the revision petition, the manager should also file a petition praying for stay of operation of Ext.P2 order. Order on this slay petition should be passed by the Government within one week from the date of its filing. In case the Government arc not staying the operation of Ext.P2 within the said period of one week, the Headmaster should be reinstated in service immediately thereafter. The writ appeal is disposed of with the above directions. Issue photo copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms.