1. The petitioner was appointed as an LPSA in Keezpayur West L.P. School, with effect from 01.06.2016, by Ext.P1 appointment order. It is not in dispute that the said appointment has not been approved till date. While so, by Ext.P2 show cause notice dated 30.07.2016, the 5th respondent Manager, who appointed the petitioner, asked the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against her in connection with certain complaints received from parents of the school children, with regard to a misconduct committed by the petitioner. Apart from stating that, on a preliminary enquiry conducted by the Manager, he was convinced that there was some substance in the complaints received in relation to the petitioner, there were no details forthcoming in Ext.P2 show cause notice, which gave the petitioner an indication of the specific acts or omissions that constituted the misconduct, that was alleged in Ext.P2 show cause notice. The petitioner accordingly submitted Ext.P3 reply dated 03.08.2016, specifically pointing out that the show cause notice, through the absence of details and materials, as regards the acts or omissions that constituted the misconduct, was vague, and therefore, the petitioner could not submit an effective reply to the said show cause notice. The petitioner was thereafter served with Ext.P4 order dated 18.08.2016 by the 5th respondent Manager, withdrawing the appointment order that was issued to the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Ext.P4 order, inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was not heard before passing Ext.P4 order and further, that there was no memo of charges, that was framed pursuant to Ext.P2 show cause notice and served on the petitioner, from which the petitioner could discern the details of the misconduct that was alleged against her.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 5th respondent, wherein, reference is made to the complaints received from various quarters against the alleged immoral activities of the petitioner. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit that the respondent did not want to state all the facts in the notice so as to enable the petitioner to have a non-stigmatic exit from the school. It is stated that, inasmuch as the petitioner had not given a satisfactory reply to the show cause notice, Ext.P4 order was passed, cancelling her appointment. As regards the holding of a full fledged enquiry, it is stated that, inasmuch as the petitioner was not an approved Teacher, the provisions under the KER, for holding an enquiry against the petitioner as part of the disciplinary proceedings, would not be applicable and hence, there was no illegality in the passing of Ext.P4 order. Reference is also made to Ext.R5(f) communication addressed to the Assistant Educational Officer, by the Manager, intimating him of the withdrawal of the appointment of the petitioner.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent would place reliance on the decisions in Balakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 923) and Vijayamma v. State (ILR 1982 (1) Ker.795 = (1982) KHC 366) to fortify her contention with regard to the provisions of the KER not applying to a Teacher, who was not approved in terms of the Rules. It is also submitted that the decisions are authorities for the proposition that the Manager of the school, who is the appointing authority, can cancel the appointment of a Teacher at any time, before the appointment is approved by the Educational Authorities, without following the procedure contemplated under the KER. On going through the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, I am of the view that, the said decisions cannot be treated as authorities for a proposition that a Manager, who makes an appointment of a Te