S. Manikumar, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal, is to the order, made in W.P. (MD) No. 16300 of 2014, dated 11.12.2014, wherein, a learned single Judge of this Court, sustained the competency of the Corporate Manager, R.C. Schools, Diocese of Kottar, Kanyakumari District, suspending the appellant. Facts leading to the appeal, are that, the appellant is the Headmistress in St. Francis Xavier Higher Secondary School, Manguzhi, Kanyakumari District. Alleging that certain acts of the appellant, were not satisfactory, Corporate Manager, R.C. Schools, Diocese of Kottar, Kanyakumari District, 2nd respondent herein, has issued a notice dated 18.07.2014, to the appellant, calling for an explanation and the same dated 25.07.2014, has been submitted. Not satisfied with the explanation, vide order, dated 22.09.2014, Corporate Manager, R.C. Schools, Diocese of Kottar, Kanyakumari District, has suspended the appellant.

2. Though in the show cause notice, dated 18.07.2014, Corporate Manager, R.C. Schools, Diocese of Kottar, Kanyakumari District, has sought for an explanation, for certain acts, which were not satisfactory, at the time of issuing the show cause notice, while suspending the appellant, the Corporate Manager, R.C. Schools, Diocese of Kottar, Kanyakumari District, has alleged indiscipline, negligence of duty, breaking the discipline and impeding the growth of the school, responsible for spoiling the student-parent relationship in the school, non transparency of financial management in the school, and disobedience to higher officials. It should be noted that acts, which were mentioned in the show cause notice, dated 18.07.2014, as not satisfactory, have been categorized, as indiscipline and others, as stated supra. Disobedience to the higher officials, is one of the reasons, mentioned in the order of suspension.

3. Before the Writ Court, the appellant has challenged the order of suspension, and among other grounds, she has stated that as per the procedure, contemplated under the Aided Schools Manual, the Correspondent of the school alone, is competent authority, to issue a charge memo and pass an order of suspension. According to her, Corporate Manager, has no authority, to suspend the appellant. Initially, on 25.09.2014, the Writ Court, has granted interim stay.

4. The District Educational Officer, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District, has filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition, stating that he has no role, to go into the internal affairs of a minority management. Thereafter, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the rules and regulations, for the schools, under the Corporate Management of R.C. Diocese of Kottar, Kanyakumari District, a learned single Judge, vide order, dated 11.12.2014, sustained the impugned order, holding that the Corporate Manager, has competence, to suspend a teacher and that the person aggrieved, may prefer a revision, before the Bishop, under rule 44 of the rules and regulations for the schools in the Corporate Management of R.C. Diocese of Kottar, Kanyakumari District.

5. Assailing the correctness of the order, made in W.P. (MD) No. 16300 of 2014 dated 11.12.2014, Mr. K. Balakrishna, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that as per the rules and regulations, for the schools, under the Corporate Management of R.C. Diocese, Kottar, Kanyakumari District, and in particular, rule 37, Correspondent of the school alone, is competent to have disciplinary control over the staff, and as per rule 42 of the said rules, if any action is taken, or orders, issued by the Correspondent, an appeal shall lie, to the Corporate Manager, at the instance of the aggrieved person.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Writ Court, has failed to advert to the above said plea and instead, applied rule 20 of Chapter II, which deals with the powers and functions of the Corporate Manager. It is also his contention that the Writ Court, failed to consider that the Corporate