Judgment :- 1. In this case Mr. V. M. B. Menon moves for a writ of certiorari on behalf of the Manager of the Aided Mopla Elementary School at Perumpadappa in the Ponnani Taluk. The orders impugned are Ex. Al, an order of the District Educational Officer, Palghat (1st respondent) dated 7-5-1956, and Ex. A2, an order of the Divisional Educational Officer, Kozhikode (2nd respondent) dated 11-3-56. 2. Ex. Al directed the reinstatement of the 3rd respondent whose services as a teacher in the Elementry School were terminated by the petitioner with effect from 1-4-1956. Against this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent but without success. All that the appellate order, Ex A2. states is: "The appeal is rejected" 3. Ex Al says: "the District Educational Officer, South Malabar, is convinced that the action of the Manager, A. M S. Perumpadappa in having terminated the services of the teacher Smt. M. S. Narayani from the school without a regular notice as is required, is not in order and is in contravention of R.13 (2) (b) of the Rules for Recognition." It is agreed that if "Rule 13 (2) (b)" has not been properly framed, the petition has to be allowed and the impugned orders set aside by an appropriate writ or direction from this court. ; 4. It is also agreed that the rule referred to in Ex. Al as "Rule 13 (2) (b) of the Rules of Recognition" is really R.13 (2) (ii) (b) of the Rules for the Grant of Recognition and Aid to Elementary Schools. ; 4. It is also agreed that the rule referred to in Ex. Al as "Rule 13 (2) (b) of the Rules of Recognition" is really R.13 (2) (ii) (b) of the Rules for the Grant of Recognition and Aid to Elementary Schools. The relevant portion of R.13 (2) (ii) reads as follows: "The management of a school shall have power to terminate the services of any member of the staff whether permanent, temporary or probationary, only as provided hereunder - (b) with three months' notice or three months' salary in lieu thereof, for any of the following reasons, viz., wilful neglect of duty, serious misconduct, gross insubordination, mental unfitness, incompetence, retrenchment, physical unfitness or any other good causes: Provided that in all the cases coming under (b), before the issue of notice, the teacher shall be informed in writing of the charges against him and shall be given a reasonable opportunity for stating his case in writing or in person, and the statements made by the teacher, if any, shall be taken into consideration before a final decision is taken by the management: Provided further that before the issue of the notice the Deputy Inspector of Schools should be consulted and his approval obtained by the management about the propriety of such an action, the Deputy Inspector being furnished with all documents relating to the case to facilitate him to offer his service". This provision came in as a result of G.O. Ms. No. 570 Education, dated 24-3-1956 and published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 4-4-1956. 5. It is common ground that the rules for the Grant of Recognition and Aid to Elementary Schools is a part (Part II) of the Rules relating to Elementary Schools framed by the Government of Madras under S.56 of the Madras Elementary Education Act, 1920. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that the Government may "after previous publication" make rules not inconsistent with the Act to carry out all or any of the provisions of the Act, and it is not disputed that "previous publication" is an essential pre-requisite to the validity of a rule. 6. According to the petitioner's counsel there has been no "previous publication" as far as the amendments embodied in G. O. Ms. No. 570, Education, dated 24-3-1956 are concerned and R.13 (2) (ii) (b) should hence be considered as not properly framed and of no effect. 6. According to the petitioner's counsel there has been no "previous publication" as far as the amendments embodied in G. O. Ms. No. 570, Education, dated 24-3-1956 are concerned and R.13 (2) (ii) (b) should hence be considered as not properly framed and of no effect. The learned Government Pleader is unable to contradict this statement and in view of that I must hold that Exts. Al and A2 are unsustainable and should be set aside. Order accordingly. 7. I make it clear that nothing in this judgment will preclude the appeal petition of the 3rd respondent being dealt with afresh and according to law. 8. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.