These writ petitions raise the issue of directions for enforcement of conditions of service of teachers appointed in unaided schools in the State. W.P(C).No.25997 of 2015 is filed by a teacher employed by the 10th respondent's school seeking consideration of her claims for payment of fair wages in accordance with the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Mythri Vidya Bhavan English Medium School and another [2012 (4) KHC 321]. W.P(C).No. 1514 of 2016 is filed by a teacher of the respondent-school seeking directions to the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner without conducting a domestic enquiry. W.P(C).No.12912 of 2016 is filed by a teacher of the 3rd respondent's school challenging Exhibits P9 and P11 orders removing her from service.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents and the learned Senior Government Pleader as well as the Amicus Curiae appointed in by this Court by order dated 17.3.2016.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners would contend that unaided schools are also subject to the provisions of Chapter XIVAA of the Kerala Education Rules. It is contended that the no-objection certificate granted by the State Government for the purpose of affiliation to private unaided schools from the CBSE amounts to a recognition granted to the school under the Kerala Education Act and Rules and that every private school would therefore be a recognized school under the definition clause of the Act. The provisions of the K.E.R would therefore be applicable to such schools and a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable in this Court as against the Managers of such schools by whatever designation they are known, to enforce the statutory duties and responsibilities. Moreover, it is contended that with the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Right to Education Act'), recognition of private educational institutions have become mandatory and the provisions of the K.E.R are statutorily made applicable to all private schools which are subject to the provisions of the said Act.

4. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in Francis v. Carmel English Medium High School [2004(3) KLT 149], Suter Paul v. Sobhana English Medium High School [2003 KHC 1230] and Bincy Raj D.R & Ors. v. Central Board of Secondary Education Shiksha Kendra & Ors. [2015(3) KLJ 707] and on several other decisions to contend that issues raised in these writ petitions can be considered by this Court in exercise of it's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. The learned amicus curiae, Sri.Surya Binoy would contend that the imparting of education is evidently a public duty imposed on any body or individual who runs an educational institution whatever be the nature of such institution. Relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in St. Joseph's Model High School v. Varghese [2009 (3) KLT 237] it is contended that all recognized unaided schools in the State are duty bound to comply with the provisions of Chapter XIVAA of the Kerala Education Rules. Reliance is also placed on the provisions of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act and the Rules made thereunder to contend that the conditions of service of teachers of unaided schools are also subject to regulation by statute and no management can claim that they are not bound to follow the same. It is therefore contended that a management running an educational institution cannot contend that it has the right to hire and fire at will and that disciplinary proceedings are a matter of administrative convenience and can be dispensed with at the option of the management. It is stated that it is trite law that the Managers of recognized schools are also subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the educational officers of the State and a writ would lie a