JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Manu Govind, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Shylaja.S.L, the learned Government Pleader.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court pointing out that he became the Manager of an educational institution during the year 2016 pursuant to Ext.P4(b). He points out that, in spite of the petitioner taking over charge of the school concerned in the year 2016, proceedings have been taken against him with reference to an allegation of bogus admissions detected by the ‘super check inspection cell’ on 28.09.2010.

3. The petitioner’s specific contention is to the effect that:

(i) If at all there is any liability, it is the previous Manager who should be held responsible, as admitted in Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent dated 23.01.2024, with reference to one Smt.Jayalakshmi, who is impleaded as the 4^th respondent in this writ petition.

(ii) The liability, if at all attracted as against a Manager, can arise only after the amendment to the provisions of Rule 17 of Chapter XXIII of the KER , which has only prospective operation from 18.04.2022.

4. I have considered the submissions made as above.

5. As rightly contented by Sri. Manu G