ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner who is the Manager of Thendaparamba Lower Primary School in Kannur District has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 order dated 12.07.2017 of the 2nd respondent Deputy Director of Education, Kannur and Ext.P9 show cause notice dated 20.09.2017 issued by the said respondent. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that Ext.P2 order of the 2nd espondent is without any authority of law and hence illegal; and also a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P11 order dated 27.02.2018 of the 2nd respondent.

2. On 16.03.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the 4th respondent. This Court has also granted an interim stay of operation and all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P11 order dated 27.02.2018 for a period of three weeks. The said interim order was extended from time to time.

3. A counter affidavit dated 02.04.2018 has been filed by the 4th respondent opposing the relief’s sought for in the writ petition. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 08.04.2018.

4. On 21.05.2018, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to produce before this Court a copy of the order, whereby the 4th respondent was deployed as Cluster Co-ordinator in Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, Kannur BRC. Thereafter, on 23.05.2018, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to produce a copy of the order issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Wayanad dated 26.07.2012 and that issued by the 2nd respondent dated 30.10.2014, along with an application to accept additional documents. Pursuant to the said order, those orders are placed on record, along with an affidavit of the 2nd respondent, by filing I.A.No.9811 of 2018 for accepting additional documents.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Rule 7 of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 are legally unsustainable, since he has not disobeyed any lawful orders issued by the educational authorities. The learned counsel would also contend that, the 2nd respondent has absolutely no authority to order re-appointment of the 4th respondent as Lower Primary School Assistant, in the vacancy which had arisen on account of the promotion of Sri Noufal as the Headmaster of the school and that, the school being a minority institution the petitioner is the absolute authority regarding appointments to be made in that school. The learned counsel would point out that, the petitioner has only acted in terms of Ext.P8 Government circular dated 06.11.2012 by offering re-appointment to the 4th respondent as LPSA on daily wages.

7. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for the 4th respondent would point out that, it was on account of denial of re-appointment to the 4th respondent, despite Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent dated 12.07.2017, and also the subsequent directions of the educational authorities, that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 7 of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules for disqualification from manager ship. Ext.P8 circular dated 06.11.2012 will not stand in the way of re-appointment of a protected teacher, who was thrown out for want of vacancy in the parent school. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would point out further that, in Ext.R4(a) letter dated 12.01.2017 of the Director of Public Instructions, it has been made clear that protected teachers under Teachers Package, who are appointed as Cluster Co-ordinators, shall be re-appointed in the pa