The main legal point established in the judgment is that the management of an unaided recognized school, not receiving financial aid from the government and not being under governmental control, is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution.

Sreedharan, J.

Petitioner in O.P. No. 11364/92 is the appellant. She approached this Court for quashing Ext. P11 order issued by 5th respondent, Manager, M.G.M., English Medium School, Muthoor dismissing her from the service of the school. Learned single judge by judgment dated 24-9-92 dismissed the original petition holding that the management of the school is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner-appellant challenges this view taken by the learned single judge.

2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this original petition are as follows: Petitioner claims to be fully qualified to hold the post of Nursery Teacher. She was appointed as a Nursery Teacher by the 5th respondent on 1-6-86. The school run by the 5th respondent is an unaided recognised institution. Petitioner has been working in the school from its very inception. The teaching staff of the school was not satisfied with the functioning and management of the school. Petitioner being the senior member of the staff used to make reasonable and lawful demands for improving the conditions of service of the staff. On 31-1-92, 5th respondent issued a memo of charges and called for explanation. Writ-petitioner, appellant submitted her explanation. Later, another memo of charges dated 28-2-92 was served on the petitioner. A reply to that was also furnished. Thereafter the Manager by letter dated 18-3-92 informed her that an enquiry was decided to be held on 26-3-92 into the earlier charges served on her. Petitioner could not attend the enquiry fixed on 26-3-92. Later she was informed of the posting of the enquiry to 31-3-92. On that day, petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer, who was an Advocate, and represented that she must be allowed to take part in the enquiry through an Advocate. Enquiry Officer did not grant that prayer; but adjourned the enquiry to 7-4-92. On 6-4-92, petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the Manager stating that she would not be attending the enquiry to be held by the Enquiry Officer who is conducting the enquiry. The Management thereafter served Ext. P11 order dated 20-4-92 on the appellant-writ petitioner dismissing her from service. This order is under challenge.

3. It is the common case of parties that 5th respondent is the Manager of an unaided recognised school. Chapter XI V(AA) of the Kerala Education Rules deals with conditions of service of teaching and non-teaching staff of recognised unaided schools. In view of the provisions contained in Chapter XIV (AA) of K.S.R.,learned counsel representing the appellant submitted that the management is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. It is his further case that institution run by the 5th respondent is one established to perform a public duty of imparting education and therefore a writ will lie against it. Consequently it is argued that this Court is to quash Ext. P11 by issuing a writ of certiorari.

4. It is true that the educational institution run by the 5th respondent is imparting education to students. The said school is supplementing the functions performed by the educational institutions run by the State and those aided by the State. It is contended that 5th respondent being an educational institution supplementing the effort of the State in educating the pupil, it must be treated that the institution is discharging a public duty and consequently amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution.

5. There is considerable mixing up of slightly different but overlapping concepts of what is meant by the words "person" or "authority" for the purpose of Art.226 of the Constitution of India and what is meant by "other authorities" in the definition of State in Art.12 for the purpose of giving the benefit of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India. It is clear that relief under Art.226 could be granted for violation of statutory and also other rights