The Manager, as the delegate of the Educational Agency, had the authority to transfer the appellant under the Kerala Education Rules, and the Corporate Management had the power to manage and maintain the schools, including the power to transfer teachers.

1. The appellant is the headmaster of the S.C.S. High School Thiruvallah, which was established sixty years ago by the second respondent, the Mar Thoma Evangelistic Association. A Committee, known as the Mar Thoma Sabha Council, had also established certain schools in the State. Both the Evangelistic Association and the Sabha Council being closely related institutions of the Malabar Mar Thoma Syrian Church, they wanted to ensure a common policy of education in all these schools and for that purpose they placed all the schools referred to above under one Corporate Management early in 1955. Later, on 2-8-1958, a formal constitution for the Corporate Management was drawn up, a copy of which is proved in this case as Ext. R1. Art.1, 2, 4, 8, 9 and 10 of this document are as follows:

1. The Corporate Management shall consist of two units - one for the boys' schools and one for the girls schools.

2. The Corporate Management shall keep a seniority list of teacher of different categories for each unit. Ordinarily promotions and transfers shall be made within the unit itself, but in the exigencies of service and interests of the schools, interunit promotions and transfers may be made by the Corporate Management.

4. The right of administering the schools shall vest with the Corporate Management, but the ownership of the schools shall vest with the present owners.

8. The finance of each school shall be kept separate and the Corporate Manager shall have full control over the finance.

9. The proprietors of any school shall have the right to withdraw their school from the Corporate Management after at least one year's notice.

10. Fresh appointments shall be made from the list of candidates selected by the Service Commission of the Mar Thoma Church.

This contention was approved by the Education Department with effect from 15-4-1959, Ext. P5 letter dated 24-7-1959 addressed to the appellant by the General Secretary shows that the appellant himself was apprised of these facts as also of the approval of the common seniority lists of teachers in all the schools as provided in Art.2 of Ext. R1 constitution. The appellant never protested against these proceedings. His only case is that by these proceedings the ownership of the S. C. S. High School was never changed and that is not disputed in this case.

2. First respondent is the manager appointed by the Corporate Management to manage all the schools under them. On 30-5-1960 he issued an order, Ext. P7, transferring the appellant to the High School at Valakam and the headmaster of that school to the S. C. S. High School, Thiruvallah. This order was served on the appellant on 1-6-1960.

3. On 2-6-1960 the appellant moved this Court by Original Petition No. 712 of 1960 for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext. P7 as it is ultra vires the powers of the 1st respondent, the author thereof. The learned judge before whom it came up for decision on 3-6-1960 dismissed the same by an order which runs as follows:

"The petitioner is a teacher in a private school and the order of transfer complained against, it is alleged, has been made by the 1st respondent, a private individual who has no competence or power to do so under the provisions of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Rules made thereunder, by which the school is governed. If that be so the petitioner can well ignore the order and I fail to see how this Court can under Art.226 of the Constitution quash an order made by what I might call a private pretender.

I dismiss the petition."

4. This appeal is preferred against the above said order.

5. We may at once say that we do not agree with the observation that if the order Ext. P7 is beyond the competence of the 1st respondent who issued it the appellant can well ignore it but cannot seek to quash it by proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. To ignore or defy the order of the manager will not prove effective. The appellant will not be