ANNAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in O. P. No. 11364/92 is the appellant. She approached this Court for quashing Ext. P11 order issued by 5th respondent, manager, M. G. M. , English Medium School , muthoor dismissing her from the service of the school. Learned single judge by judgment dated 24-9-92 dismissed the original petition holding that the management of the school is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court. PETITIONER-appellant challenges this view taken by the learned single judge.

(2.) SHORT facts necessary for the disposal of this original petition are as follows: Petitioner claims to be fully qualified to hold the post of Nursery Teacher. She was appointed as a Nursery Teacher by the 5th respondent on 1-6-86. The school run by the 5th respondent is an unaided recognised institution. Petitioner has been working in the school from its very inception. The teaching staff of the school was not satisfied with the functioning and management of the school. Petitioner being the senior member of the staff used to make reasonable and lawful demands for improving the conditions of service of the staff. On 31-1-92, 5th respondent issued a memo of charges and called for explanation. Writ-petitioner, appellant submitted her explanation. Later, another memo of charges dated 28-2-92 was served on the petitioner. A reply to that was also furnished. Thereafter the Manager by letter dated 18-3-92 informed her that an enquiry was decided to be held on 26-3-92 into the earlier charges served on her. Petitioner could not attend the enquiry fixed on 26-3-92. Later she was informed of the posting of the enquiry to 31-3-92. On that day, petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer, who was an Advocate, and represented that she must be allowed to take part in the enquiry through an Advocate. Enquiry Officer did not grant that prayer; but adjourned the enquiry to 7-4-92. On 6-4-92, petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the Manager stating that she would not be attending the enquiry to be held by the Enquiry Officer who is conducting the enquiry. The management thereafter served Ext. P11 order dated 20-4-92 on the appellant-writ petitioner dismissing her from service. This order is under challenge.

(3.) THERE is considerable mixing up of slightly different but overlapping concepts of what is meant by the words "person" or "authority" for the purpose of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and what is meant by "other authorities" in the definition of State in Art. 12 for the purpose of giving the benefit of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India. It is clear that relief under Art. 226 could be granted for violation of statutory and also other rights which may not amount to fundamental rights. What is a State for the purpose of Art. 12 will a fortiori be an "authority" for the purpose of Art. 226 but the converse is not always true.