M ARJUN ELAYAD Vs. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the Manager of an aided lower primary school at Melmuri in Pattambi. He has sought to quash two orders passed by the Assistant Educational Officer, Pattambi 1st respondent evidenced by Exs. P1 and P3 whereby the petitioner has been informed that the action taken by him in terminating the service of the 2nd respondent, one A. L. Devassy Kutty, who was functioning as an Assistant Teacher in the school in purporting to discharge him from service on the ground of unsatisfactory work during the period of his probation, was not valid or legal since the requisite previous approval of the Educational Officer had not been obtained as laid down in R.6(c) of Chap.14(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 and consequently calling upon the petitioner to reinstate the said teacher into service.

(2.) Certain facts which are not in controversy may now be mentioned. The 2nd respondent was appointed as a teacher on probation in the petitioner's school on 27-7-1967. Under R.6(a) of Chap.14(A) of the Kerala Education Rules qualified teachers on their initial appointment shall be on probation for a total period of one year on duty within a continuous period of two years. When the said period of one year was about to expire in the case of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner passed orders on 24-7-1968 discharging him from service apparently on the ground of unsatisfactory work as a probationer. When this order came to the notice of the Educational Officer the petitioner was informed as per Exs. Rs. and R3 that the action so taken by him was illegal and invalid and he was called upon to reinstate the 2nd respondent to service. In the order Ex. R3 passed, by District Educational Officer, Ottapalam it was specifically directed that the period of break in service of the 2nd respondent occasioned by the irregular termination of his service from 25-7-1968 to 3-8-1968 (the date of his reinstatement consequent on the direction by the Assistant Educational Officer) should be treated as eligibly leave. Thereafter, while the 2nd respondent was continuing in service as a teacher in the school pursuant to his reinstatement "the petitioner addressed a communication dated 23-6-1969 to the Assistant Educational Officer intimating the latter about his intention to terminate the probation of the 2nd respondent and to discharge him from service with effect from 23-7-1969. On 4-8-1969, the Assistant Educational Officer by his order Ex. P1 informed the petitioner that the petitioner's action in terminating the service of the teacher without obtaining the previous approval of the Educational Officer as enjoined in R.6(c) of Chap.14(A) of the Kerala Education Rules was not valid or legal and that the teacher should be forthwith reinstated in service, in reply to this communication the petitioner sent a representation evidenced by Ex. P2 wherein he contended that R.6(c) mentioned above does not require the Manager to obtain the previous approval of the Educational Officer before discharging a probationer from service. The petitioner also relied on the communication sent by him to the Assistant Educational Officer on 23 6 1969 giving intimation about his proposal to take such action against the teacher and he sought to place the blame for contravention, if any, of R.6(c) entirely on the Officer for his omission to send any reply to the petitioner either granting or declining approval, Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed the order Ex. P3 dated 17-9-1969 rejecting the petitioner's contention that previous approval was not necessary and pointing out to the petitioner that in his communication dated 23-6-1969 there was no request whatever made for the grant of the Educational Officer's approval for the proposed action. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to implement forthwith the direction already given in the order Ex. P1 dated 4-8-1969 and report compliance.

(3.) In support of the challenge against Exs. P1 and P3 the petitioner has put forward three contentions; firstly, it is urged that the view taken by 1st respondent that it was incumbent on the Manager to have obtained the previous approval of the Educational Officer before discharging from service the probationer, namely the 2nd respondent, is based on an erroneous interpretation of R.6(c) of Chap.14(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959. Secondly, it is contended that in case the true interpretation of R.6(c) is that the Manager has to obtain the previous approval of the Educational Officer before discharging from service a probationer on the ground of unsatisfactory work during the period of probation, the said rule must be held to be invalid since it constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the Manager's right to administer the institution owned by him. Lastly, it was argued that the school in question is one conducted for the benefit of a minority community namely Moplas and that the petitioner is entitled to protection of Art.30 of the Constitution and hence nothing contained in R.6(c) can abridge his right to administer the institution in such manner as he deems fit.