C.T. Ravikumar, J.

1. A succinct narration of the facts that constrained the petitioner to submit Ext.P2 representation is required for considering this writ petition that carries a seemingly innocuous prayer. On coming to know that there are vacancies under the 4th respondent for appointment to the post of Peon, the petitioner claims to have submitted Ext.P1 application seeking consideration of his candidature for appointment. The contention of the petitioner is that thereupon, the 4th respondent offered him appointment on payment of Rs.3,00,000/- as donation. According to the petitioner, on 27.10.2011, he handed over the said amount in the presence of two witnesses believing the promises held out by the 4th respondent. The case of the petitioner is that despite handing over such an amount, he has not been given appointment so far as promised and in the circumstances, he submitted Ext.P2 representation before the first respondent carrying the request for interference in the matter to create a conducive situation for his appointment. It is the non-feasance on the part of the first respondent despite the receipt of Ext.P2 that constrained the petitioner to file the captioned writ petition. In Ext.P2, the petitioner stated that he had handed over an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- through One N.K.Sunny for handing over it to the manager of the 4th respondent. It is further stated therein that despite the receipt of such an amount, so far, he was not given appointment and on being contacted over telephone, the 4th respondent promised to give him an appointment. It is also stated in Ext.P2 that the petitioner had raised the aforesaid amount by way of pledging ornaments belonging to his wife. The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 representation filed by the petitioner within such time fixed by this Court. Therefore, the question to be considered is whether a writ of mandamus could be issued at the instance of a person who allegedly gave illegal gratification for earning appointment in a school, aided or recognised, against the Director of Public Instruction to act upon such a representation to make the manager of the school who allegedly received the same to give appointment as allegedly promised?

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. A perusal of the scheme of Kerala Education Rules would reveal that in the matter of appointments, the power is vested with the manager of the concerned educational agency. Rule 9 of Chapter III, KER makes it clear that the Manager of an aided school is having the power coupled with a duty to provide the staff required for the school concerned. In the decision in Manager M.M.H.S. v. Deputy Director of Education, 1994(1) KLT 321 it was held by this Court that when the educational authorities came to the conclusion that a particular number of teachers are required to impart proper education to the pupils in accordance with the rules for staff fixation the manager could not be allowed to take a stand that appointment is his prerogative and that he could not be compelled to make appointment. Giving such a right to the manager would certainly adversely affect the educational prospects of the students and the academic work of the school. Therefore, it is the bounden duty of the manager to provide the staff required for the school and when the Govrnment had taken upon itself the liability to pay the salary of all the teachers in aided school, it is the duty of the manager to fill up all the posts in accordance with the orders of educational authorities fixing the staff strength, going by the said decision. This position is, in fact, incontrovertible. Rule 1 Chapter XIV. A of KER makes it obligatory on the part of the managers of private schools to fill up the vacancies whenever a vacancy occurs in an aided school after following the directions issued by th