1. The petitioner was working as Stores Clerk in Mar Gregorious English Medium Higher Secondary School, Njaliyakuzhy in Kottayam District (for short ‘the School’) and she is aggrieved by the termination from its service with effect from 31.3.2013. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of Ext.P2 notice and issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioner in service of the respondents as Stores Clerk with effect from 01.04.2013 and to disburse all service benefits due to her. The further prayer is for a declaration to the effect that the termination of the petitioner as per the decision of the 3rd respondent dated 07.02.2013, as has been mentioned in Ext.P2 notice, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.

2. It is common case that the School is a recognised unaided school under the Kerala Education Act. The petitioner was appointed as clerk in the school on 02.06.2001 and thereafter posted as Stores Clerk. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the petitioner relies on Rule 4(c) of Ext.P1 to contend that it authorizes the Governing Body only to give suggestion to the Manager without prejudice to the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules thereunder and that the existence of Ext.P1 has not been specifically disputed by the respondents. It is also nobody’s case that the petitioner was so promoted and had been working in the Higher Secondary Wing of the School. The case is that while working so, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 notice dated 27.2.2013 intimating her of the decision to terminate her from service with effect from 31.3.2013 for commission of certain misconducts. It is stated therein that earlier the governing body of the 1st respondent arrived at a decision to terminate her service by way of penalty. It is the precise case of the petitioner that she stood terminated from service in terms of Ext.P2 and no other orders in relation to termination have been issued to her either prior to or subsequent to Ext.P2. Various grounds have been raised by the petitioner to assail Ext.P2 and to fortify her claim for the aforesaid reliefs. Firstly, it is contended that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted against her and therefore the imposition of the extreme penalty of termination from service is unsustainable for violation of the principles of natural justice and also the specific provisions under Rule III of Chapter XIV-AA of the Kerala Education Rules (for short the ‘KER’). It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed with the aforementioned prayers.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. A perusal of the counter affidavit would reveal that their prime contention rather, objection is regarding the maintainability of this writ petition. According to them, no writ petition would lie against the 1st respondent as it is a private recognised unaided school. It is further contended that the petitioner is guilty of suppression inasmuch as O.S.No.97 of 2013 filed by her before the Munsiff Court, Changanasserry in the same subject matter was withdrawn only during the pendency of this writ petition viz., on 04.06.2013 and not prior to its filing. It is stated that in the said suit the petitioner had earlier filed a temporary injunction application and after hearing it was dismissed on 1.4.2013. (In fact, it was dismissed on 4.4.2013). It is also stated in the counter affidavit that though several complaints were received earlier against the petitioner considering her widowhood and the unconditional apology she was permitted to continue in service and it is commission of financial irregularities while holding charge of the school society that constrained the 3rd respondent to terminate her service. Further, it is contended that another clerk namely Elsamma Chacko who stood terminated from service along with the petitioner challenged her termination before the Labour