The petitioner who is a senior citizen and is an individual educational agency as provided in the Kerala Education Rules,1959 (for brevity 'KER'); challenges Exts.P4 and P9 orders passed by the Government. Ext.P4 is a direction to remit Rs.3,53,652/- being loss sustained to Government on account of payment of salary to Sri T Abhilash for the illegal suspension period. Ext.P9 is a revenue recovery notice issued on the said liability.

2. The brief facts to be noticed are that the petitioner is an individual educational agency carrying on the aided school, MPM L.P.S, Killy, Kollode P.O. The petitioner had, by due authorization, under Rule 3 of Chapter III of KER appointed her husband as the Manager of the School. While the petitioner's husband was continuing as the Manager, the 5th respondent, an LPSA was suspended on 03.01.1998. Allegedly on the basis of an enquiry report, the Manager discharged the 5th respondent, who was said to be on probation at that point of time, on 11.02.1999. The AEO refused to approve the discharge and directed reinstatement of the 5th respondent on 28.03.2001.

3. The admitted case is that the Manager had availed of all the statutory remedies and eventually this Court permitted the Manager to continue with the disciplinary proceedings, but, however, specifically directed the reinstatement of the 5th respondent. The Manager was recalcitrant insofar as carrying out the reinstatement and proceedings were initiated under Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER, by which, the Deputy Director disqualified the Manager and the AEO was given charge of the Manager. The AEO reinstated the 5th respondent on 06.02.2003.

4. On 15.02.2003 the petitioner sought approval of appointment of a new Manager. Ext.P3 order was passed on 20.10.2004 rejecting the petitioner's representation, on the ground that there was a liability pending against the Manager, which the educational agency had to satisfy. By Ext.P4 notice dated 02.12.2004 an amount of Rs.3,53,652/- was mulcted on the Manager and the petitioner who was the educational agency was required to satisfy the same. The liability as is seen from Ext.P4 , was with respect to the period in which the 5th respondent was kept under illegal suspension.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner takes me through Rule 7 of Chapter III and Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A to distinguish between the status of an educational agency and the Manager. Further reliance is placed on Rule 1 and Rule 3 of Chapter III and subsection (2) of Section 2 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 to contend that the Manager and the educational agency, being two different individuals, they are two separate legal entities, having distinct status even as per the Act and Rules. One cannot be proceeded against for the default of the other, is the argument. It is also pointed out that Rule 7 of Chapter III and Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A specifically speaks of the proceedings against the Manager; that too only in circumstances, when loss has been caused to the Government. The further contention is with respect to no notice having been issued against the petitioner. The essential contention is that the petitioner being an educational agency, could not have been mulcted with the liability of the Manager and even if liable it can only be with a proper notice and hearing.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is the educational agency, who as per the provisions of the KER authorized her husband as the Manager. Rule 3(4) of Chapter III specifically makes the educational agency responsible for the acts of the Manager. The statutory provision hence imports the law regarding the principal and an agent and no educational agency can absolve itself from the liability on the ground that the default committed or the loss occasioned was due to the conduct of the Manager. The distinct status as per the Act and Rule is subject to the specific provision of the Rules by which the authorisation is approved by the educational authority.

7. The further cont