The central legal point established in the judgment is the manager's right to close down the school under the Kerala Education Act, 1958, and the inconsistency of R.24(2) of the Rules with the Act, affirming the manager's freedom to close down the school subject to reasonable restrictions under the Constitution of India.

Varghese Kalliath, J.

These appeals are against the judgment in O.P.No.8684/87. W.A.No.284/89 is by the first respondent-State of Kerala in the Original Petition and W. A.No.226/89 is by the additional 3rd respondent. Petitioner in the Original Petition challenged Ext.P9 notification issued by the Government under

S.14(2) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (Act 6 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read will) sub-rule (5) of R.I in Chap.20 of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules').

2. A learned single judge of this Court, after considering the points raised by the petitioner against Ext.P9, quashed Ext.P9 and allowed the Original Petition. The Slate/ first respondent has filed W.A.No.284/S9 and the additional 3rd respondent has filed W.A.No.226/89. In these circumstances, we think that it is only appropriate to dispose of these two writ appeals by a common judgment.

3. Petitioner in the Original Petition was the manager of Nurani Hindu High School, Palghat. By Ext.P3 dated 21-2-1985, petitioner in the Original Petition informed the Director of Public Instruction that he proposes to closed own the institution with effect from 1st June, 1986. He only said that the circumstances do not permit him to run the school. The Director of Public Instruction declined permission by his order dated 13-2-1986. Petitioner replied to Ext.P4 by Ext.P5 communication dated 5-3-1986 slating that no permission is required to close the school and so Ext.P4 is ineffective and invalid. By Ext.P6, petitioner informed the Headmaster also that he is closing down the school from 1-6-1986, In Ext.P1 he has said thus: "Please be informed that in pursuance of my notice cited given to you, the school has been closed down with effect from this day". The notice referred is Ext.P3 dated 21-2-1985. In the light of these proceedings, Government passed Ext.P9 order which is challenged in the Original Petition.

4. The question that was considered in the Original Petition by the learned single judge was as to the validity of Ext.P9 notification. Admittedly Ext.P9 was passed under S.14(2) of the Act. It is contended by the petitioner that by Ext.P3 notice read with Ext.P7, the school stood closed from 1-6-1986 and there was no existing school to enable the Government to assume management long after 1-06-1986 by Ext.P9 proceedings dated 8-9-1987. Section 7(6) of the Act provides that no manager shall close down the school unless one year's notice, expiring with the 31st May of any year, of his intention so to do, has been given to the officer authorised by the government in this behalf. The Rule corresponding to S.7(6) of the Act is R.24 of Chap. V of the Rules. R.24 (i) provides that no private school shall be closed down without giving the Director one year's notice expiring with the 31st May of any year of the intention to do so. R.24(2) of he Rules enables the Director to consider the question of closure of the school and t 1, rant or refuse permission for the closure of the school. This provision was found to be invalid in the decision reported in 1972 KLT 496 (Krishna Kumar v. State of Kerala & oiliers). This court held that sub-rule (2) of R.24 of the Rules is inconsistent with S.7(6) of the Act and beyond rule making power. We may advert to this decision a little elaborately when we deal with the question of the correctness of this decision.

5. It has to be noted that the above decision has been followed in 1986 KLT 359 (Siibmtnanian v. State of Kerala & others). Another learned single judge of this Court observed that the provision of S.7 and of R.24(1) of Chapter V do not speak of any "permission" from any one. The only obligation of the manager is to give one year's notice of his intention to close down, so that if the authorities are so minded, they can make other arrangements for the staff and the pupils. Further it was held that "For the simple reason that it is inconvenient for the State, the D.P.I. or the