Managers of schools are duty-bound to provide staff as per the rules and orders of educational authorities, and failure to do so may result in liability for monetary loss under the Revenue Recovery Act.

Sreedharan, J.

Fifth respondent in the Original Petition, who is the Manager of M.M. High School and U.P. School, New Mahe, is the appellant. Learned Single Judge directed the Deputy Director of Education to compute the monetary loss sustained by the writ petitioner on account of the failure of the Manager in not giving her appointment and to realise it from the Manager under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for payment to the writ petitioner. Appellant questions the correctness of the said direction.

2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: - Writ petitioner had approved service in the school under the management of the appellant as a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in the U.P. section of the school from 1-2-1973 to 23-4-1973 and from 29-1-1985 to 9-3-1985. She had also another term as H.S.A. (Hindi) between 17-2-1983 and 19-4-1983. On the retirement of a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in the U.P. section on 31-3-1990, a vacancy arose in the U.P. section with effect from 1-6-1990 in the cadre of Lower Grade Hindi Teacher. Writ petitioner made representations to the Manager for getting appointment against the said vacancy. She also approached the educational authorities by filing many representations. Assistant Educational Officer, by letter dated 4-2-1991, informed her that necessary action was being taken in regard to her request for appointment in the vacancy which arose from 1-6-1990. Inspite of the various representations and the above mentioned reply from the Assistant Educational Officer, no action was taken by the Manager or the authorities to give the writ petitioner order of appointment. Therefore she moved this Court by filing O.P. 2480/1991 on 6-3-1991.

3. When the Original Petition came up for hearing on 5-7-1991, learned counsel representing the Manager-fifth respondent staled before Court that writ petitioner will be appointed in the vacancy that arose on 1-6-1990 within three weeks from that date. A learned Single Judge recorded that statement made by counsel and disposed of the Original Petition. Later, Manager moved a petition for review of the judgment. That petition was allowed, the judgment set aside and the Original Petition was posted for further hearing. Thereafter by order dated 1-8-1991, this Court directed the Manager to appoint the writ petitioner in the vacancy which arose on account of the retirement of the teacher on 31-3-1990 as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher within a period often days. Instead of complying with that order, Manager filed a counter affidavit stating that he does not propose to make any appointment against the said vacancy. By order dated 30-8-1991, this Court gave one more opportunity to the Manager to implement the order within one week. This Court directed him to report compliance of the direction on 9-9-1991. It was also directed that if no such order was passed by the Manager, he was to be present personally in Court and show cause why proceedings in contempt should not be taken against him.

4. On 9-9-1991, counsel representing the Manager submitted that a letter has been issued to the petitioner on 4-9-1991 directing her to join the post of Hindi Teacher in the U.P. section within seven days from the date of receipt of the letter. Writ petitioner received that letter on 5-9-1991. Thereupon she appeared be fore the Headmaster of the school to join duty. But, she was informed by the Headmaster that no instruction had been given by the Manager to admit her to duly. Further, the communication sent by the Manager was not an order of appointment in the form prescribed 'by the Kerala Education Rules. Ultimately, petitioner was admitted to duly on 12-9-1991 and a proper order of appointment in the prescribed form was also issued.

5. Under the circumstances detailed above, the learned Single Judge found that the Manager should compensate the loss sustained by the writ petitioner on account of the delayed appointment. Learned counsel representing the M