K. Baiakrishnan Nair, J.
1. The point that arises for decision in this case is the validity of termination of a teacher by the Manager of a recognised, but unaided school. The appellants are respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition. They are respectively the Manager and Headmaster of St. Joseph's Model High School, Kuriachira, Thrissur.
2. The brief facts of the case are the following:-The first respondent herein was appointed as a probationary teacher in the first appellant's school by Ext.Pl order dated 5.8.1997 for the period from 5.8.1997 to 31.3.1998, According to the first respondent, even after the term in Ext.Pl, he continued in service. While so, he was issued with Ext.P2 certificate dated 10.8.1998 to enable him to apply for appointment elsewhere. According to him, he continued in the said school till he was terminated from service during the academic year 1999-2000. It was done to accommodate another person in his place. Aggrieved first respondent/petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.P3 representation before the District Educational Officer. Alleging that no action was taken on it by the D.E.O. and also seeking appropriate direction to the appellants, the writ petition was filed.
3. The appellants filed a counter affidavit stating that the respondent was accommodated in the school on his request, so that he can gain some experience. He wanted to get appointment in De Paul English Medium High School, Choondal. For that, teaching experience ,was required. To acquire the teaching experience, he was working in the first appellant's school. Later he got employment in the said English Medium High School as evident from Ext.R4(a). The appellants also submitted that all other averments in the writ petition are not correct. They also contended that no writ will lie against the manager of a recognised school.
4. The D.E.O. has also filed a Counter affidavit in the writ petition, pointing out the receipt of Ext.P3. The first respondent/petitioner filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the appellants. Learned Single judge after hearing both sides, held that the first respondent's termination from service was in violation of Rule 3 of Chapter XIV-AA of Kerala Education Rules. Therefore, the learned Single Judge directed the D.E.O to take action against the first appellant/Manager for the violation of Rule 3 of Chapter XIV-AA, K.E.R., The contention that no writ will lie against the manager of a recognised school was overruled. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this writ appeal is filed,
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that when Ext.P3 representation filed by the first respondent was brought to the notice of the first appellant by the D.E.O., the said appellant submitted Annexure 2 representation, but without waiting for any decision by the D.E.O., the first respondent straight away approached this Court. According to the appellants, the D.E.O. has no power or authority to take action against the Manager of a recognised school.
6. From the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules, we notice that generally the powers and functions of the managers of recognised schools are in no way different from the powers and. functions of the managers of aided schools. Section 7 of the Kerala Education Art deals with the appointment of Managers and Sub-section (2) thereof specifically states that. 'Managers shall be responsible for the conduct of the school in accordance with the provision of the Act and the Rules thereunder'. Section 19 of the Art specifically provides that the provisions of Sub-sections 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Section 7 shall apply to recognised schools to the same extent and in the same manner as they apply to aided schools. The provisions of Chapter Hi are generally applicable to managers of recognised schools also. Rule 3 thereof applies only to aided schools. But in Rule 7, there is no such restriction. If the school is not run in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules as mandated under Section 7(2) of the Art, action can be taken against the manager under Rule 7 of Chapter HI. Rule 3 of Chapter XIV-AA provides that the teacher of an aided school shall not be terminated from service without conducting a domestic enquiry and giving the teacher an opportunity of being heard, in that enquiry. In the case on hand, though the first respondent was terminated from service, it was not preceded by any domestic enquiry. A reading of the counter affidavit of the appellant shows that the first respondent was not terminated, but he went away as he got employment in another English Medium School. But Annexure 2 would show that there were serious allegations against him and according to the Manager, since the first respondent was not a permanent teacher, it was unnecessary to follow the procedure under Rule 3 of Chapter XTV-AA, K.E.R.
7. If the manager of a recognised school fails to observe the mandate of the statute, a writ of mandamus can be issued by this Court to compel him to discharge his duty under the statute. We agree with the learned Single Judge on this point.
8. Going by the materials on record, especially the appointment order - Ext.P1, appointing the first respondent as probationer, it could be found that he was a regular hand. Only a regular teacher will be appointed on probation. Of course, he may be retrenched if there is a division fall and there is no vacancy to accommodate him. But, in this case, after he was terminated, another teacher was appointed in his place. So, his termination was not for want of vacancy, but, for other reasons. Annexure 2 would show that the appellants were dissatisfied with the performance of the first respondent. Therefore, the procedure under Rule 3 of Chapter XIV-AA. ought to have been followed. So, we agree with the view taken by the learned Single judge that the teacher has been terminated from service in violation of Rule 3. The counter affidavit of the D.E.O. states that recognised school is out of bounds for him. But going by the scheme of the Act, the manager of a recognised school is also subject to his supervisory jurisdiction and the said officer can take action against the managers of recognised schools, if they function in violation of the Kerala Education Act and Rules. Having regard to the above legal position, we find that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to take action against the first appellant cannot be said to be illegal or Irregular.
Of course, the D.E.O. or other competent authority shall take action only in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the manager.
Subject to the above observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.