1. This Writ Petition was originally filed by one G. Vedanayakom, who was the Manager of Gnanodayam L.P. School, Mannamkonam, which is an Aided School under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Educational Officer, Kattakkada, the 5th respondent, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P13 order dated 5.3.2004 issued by the 1st respondent, Exhibits P15 and P16 demand notices dated 29.1.2008 issued by the 7th respondent and also for other consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the original writ petitioner died and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 7 as per order dated 10.11.2009 in I.A. No. 13646 of 2009.

2. The 6th respondent was working as a Lower Primary School Assistant in Gnanodayam L.P. School, Mannamkonam. On 2.12.2002, the original writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Manager) placed her under suspension alleging certain misconducts, in exercise of his powers under Rule 67(1) of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ker). Thereafter, the Manager sought permission of the 5th respondent to continue the period of suspension beyond 15 days, as provided under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of the KER. The 5th respondent after conducting a preliminary enquiry approved the action of the Manager in placing the 6th respondent under suspension, by Exhibit P2 order dated 16.12.2002. Later, the 5th respondent by Exhibit P3 order dated 31.12.2002 declined permission to extend the period of suspension of the 6th respondent and the Manager was directed to reinstate her in service forthwith. In the meantime, the Manager had issued Exhibit P4 memo of charges to the 6th respondent, to which she submitted Exhibit P5 reply.

3. Exhibit P3 order of the 5th respondent was under challenge in O.P. No. 1732 of 2003 filed by the Manager and this Court by Exhibit P6 judgment set aside the said order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and it was made clear that the quashing of the said order on technical grounds will not preclude the 5th respondent from exercising his right to consider whether continued suspension of the 6th respondent is necessary. It was also made clear that the parties will be bound by the decision of the District Educational Officer, the 4th respondent, on the appeal filed by the 6th respondent. The 4th respondent by Exhibit P7 order dated 24.3.2003 set aside Exhibit P2 order of the 5th respondent granting approval for the suspension of the 6th respondent and the Manager was directed to reinstate her forthwith. It was followed by Exhibit P8 communication dated 26.5.2003 of the 4th respondent, directing the Manager to reinstate the 6th respondent forthwith, failing which the Manager will be visited with deterrent action under Rule 7(1) of Chapter III of the KER.

4. Challenging Exhibit P7 order, the Manager filed Exhibit P9 revision petition before the Government, the 2nd respondent, under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of the KER and the Government by Exhibit P10 order dated 21.11.2003 stayed the operation of Exhibit P7 order till the disposal of Exhibit P9. But, the Director of Public Instruction, the 3rd respondent, by Exhibit P11 communication dated 8.10.2003, directed the Manager to comply with Exhibit P7 order. Aggrieved by Exhibit P11, the Manager submitted Exhibit P12 representation dated 1.11.2003 before the Minister for Education, Kerala. While so, the petitioner was served with Exhibit P13 order of the 2nd respondent dated 5.3.2004, in which the Government upheld Exhibit P7 order of the 4th respondent, directing the Manager to reinstate the 6th respondent forthwith. It was further ordered that, the period during which the 6th respondent was kept out of service shall be treated as duty for all purposes and the salary paid to her during the said period should be recovered from the Manager. The Government found that, the action of the 5th respondent in having approved the suspension of