K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The point that arises for decision in this case is the validity of termination of a teacher by the Manager of a recognised, but unaided school. The appellants are respondents 3 and 4 in the Writ Petition. They are respectively the Manager and Headmaster of St. Joseph's Model High School, Kuriachira, Thrissur.

2. The brief facts of the case are the following:-The first respondent herein was appointed as a probationary teacher in the first appellant's school by Ext.P 1 order dated 5.8.1997 for the period from 5.8.1997 to 31.3.1998. According to the first respondent, even after the term in Ext.P1, he continued in service. While so, he was issued with Ext.P2 certificate dated 10.8.1998 to enable him to apply for appointment elsewhere. According to him, he continued in the said school till he was terminated from service during the academic year 1999-2000. It was done to accommodate another person in his place. Aggrieved first respondent/petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.P3 representation before the District Educational Officer. Alleging that no action was taken on it by the D.E.O. and also seeking appropriate direction to the appellants, the Writ Petition was filed.

3. The appellants filed a counter affidavit stating that the respondent was accommodated in the school on his request, so that he can gain some experience. He wanted to get appointment in De Paul English Medium High School, Choondal. For that, teaching experience was required. To acquire the teaching experience, he was working in the first appellant's school. Later he got employment in the said English Medium High School as evident from Ext.R4(a). The appellants also submitted that all other averments in the Writ Petition are not correct. They also contended that no writ will lie against the manager of a recognised school.

4. The D.E.O. has also filed a counter affidavit in the Writ Petition, pointing out the receipt of Ext.P3. The first respondent/petitioner filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the appellants. Learned Single Judge after hearing both sides, held that the first respondent's termination from service was in violation of R.3 of Chap.XIV-AA of Kerala Education Rules. Therefore, the learned Single Judge directed the D.E.O. to take action against the first appellant/Manager for the violation of R.3 of Chap.XIV-AA, K.E.R. The contention that no writ will lie against the manager of a recognised school was overruled. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that when Ext.P3 representation filed by the first respondent was brought to the notice of the first appellant by the D.E.O., the said appellant submitted Annexure 2 representation, but without waiting for any decision by the D.E.O., the first respondent straight away approached this Court. According to the appellants, the D.E.O. has no power or authority to take action against the Manager of a recognised school.

6. From the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules, we notice that generally the powers and functions of the managers of recognised schools are in no way different from the powers and functions of the managers of aided schools. S.7 of the Kerala Education Act deals with the appointment of Managers and sub-s.(2) thereof specifically states that, "Managers shall be responsible for the conduct of the school in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder". S.19 of the Act specifically provides that the provisions of sub-ss.(2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) of S.7 shall apply to recognised schools to the same extent and in the same manner as they apply to aided schools. The provisions of Chap.III are generally applicable to managers of recognised schools also. R.3 thereof applies only to aided schools. But in R.7, there is

no such restriction. If the school is not run in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules as mandated un