Ravindran, J.

1. Is the manager of an aided school empowered to review and cancel the appointment of a teacher as Headmaster, after the appointment is approved by the Educational Officer, is the main question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal.

2. The appellants in this writ appeal, who are husband and wife, are the petitioners in O.P.No. 18698 of 1998. The first appellant is the educational agency and the second appellant is the manger of Upper Primary School, Pulimath, an aided school situated within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the Assistant Educational Officer, Kilimanoor.

3. the fifth respondent entered service as a Part-time Sanskrit Teacher in Upper Primary School, Pulimath, hereinafter referred to as the “school” for short, on 6.1973. His appointment as part-time Sanskrit Teacher was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer. The state government had in

G.O. (MS) No. 62/73/G.Edn. dated 5.1973 ordered that part-time Language Teachers, who have put in more than 5 years of service and have 8 periods of work per week shall henceforth be made Full-time. In terms of the said government order, the fifth respondent was appointment as Full-time Teacher of the school on 17.1978 after he completed 5 years of service. The fifth respondent’s appointment as Full-time Sanskrit Teacher was also approved by the third respondent.

4. Sri. M.K. Raveendran Nair, the Headmaster of the school retired from service on 33.1993 on attaining the age of superannuation. In the resultant vacancy, the second appellant, the manager of the school of which the first appellant is the educational agency, appointed the fifth respondent as Headmaster with effect from 4.1993. The appointment of the fifth respondent as Headmaster was duly approved and his probation in the category of Headmaster was also declared to have been satisfactorily completed.

.5. While matters stood thus, the second appellant, the manager of the school issued and served on the fifth respondent Ext.P2 memo of charges dated 4.1995. Later, the second appellant placed the fifth respondent under suspension with effect from 26.1995. The Assistant Educational Officer, kilimanoor, the third respondent herein, to whom the matter was reported, held after a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension that there are no valid grounds for placing the fifth respondent under suspension. The third respondent accordingly directed the manager to reinstate the fifth respondent in service with effect from the date of suspension. This was as per proceedings dated 7.1995. It is relevant to note that the second appellant had not obtained the previous sanction of the Assistant Educational Officer to place the fifth respondent under suspension for a continuous period exceeding 15 days. The second appellant challenged the order dated 7.1995 passed by the third respondent in a revision petition dated 10.7.1995 filed before the state government under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the KER. After hearing the second appellant and the fifth respondent, the state government issued Ext.P3 communication dated 22.1996 to the second appellant informing her that the government do not find any reason the interfere with the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer. The second appellant, the manager of the school

.thereupon filed O.P.No. 6454 of 1996 challenging Ext.P3 and other related orders. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 10.4.1996, this Court set aside Ext.P3 on the short ground that it did not give any reason and directed the state government to consider the revision petition filed by the second appellant afresh and to pass appropriate orders thereon.

6. As directed in Ext.P4 judgment, the Additional Secretary to Government, General Education Department heard the parties concerned, namely, the second appellant and the fifth respondent herein on 20.7.1996. The state government thereafter issued Ext.P5 order dated 29.1996 affirming the order dated 7.1995 p