TOJI JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can there be a Writ of Mandamus to interfere with the Disciplinary proceedings or Transfer of a Teacher ordered by the Management of an "Unaided School", is the 'Bulls Eye' to be pierced in the instant case.

(2.) The main challenge involved in this Writ Petition is against the termination of service of the first petitioner ordered by the third respondent/Management of the unaided school as per Ext. P14 and the subsequent Ext. P21 resolution, declining to effect the proposed reinstatement. The grievance of the second petitioner, who is none other than the wife of the first petitioner, is against her transfer from the present school to another school belonging to the very same Management . Knowing the fact that the third respondent is an "unaided school", the petitioners have placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in K. Krishnamacharyulu and Ors. v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and Anr., 1997 2 SCR 368 and also on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Suter Paul v. Sobhana English Medium High School,2003 3 KLT 1019 to contend that the Writ Petition is very much maintainable against such private Management in view of the law declared therein.

(3.) The sequence of events, according to the first petitioner is that while working as an Accountant under the 4th respondent/School managed by the third respondent, having obtained appointment as Accountant in 1998 and regularised in the year 2000, he was served with Ext.P1 show cause notice stating that he was unauthorisedly absent on the 2nd and 3rd of December, 2004 and abstained from 'sports duty' in connection with the Sports Meet in the School in spite of the clear instruction given in this regard, whereby negligence and deliberate insubordination were attributed, besides the unauthorised absence. The first petitioner submitted Ext. P3 explanation stating that he was having the 'additional charge' of Accountant in another school, owned and managed by the third respondent itself at Thachampara; that he had reported for duty on 02.04.2004 in the above school as certified by the Principal of the said school vide Ext.P2 and that he had already informed the position to the Principal orally. The 1st petitioner has also got a case that on 03.12.2004 , in view of some eye ailment, he was advised by the Doctor to avoid from being exposed to direct sun light.