Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the Gnjanodayam Upper Primary School, Chittanda by the manager of the school and by his letter dated 29 111966 the latter requested the Assistant Educational Officer to approve the appointment. The certificate showing petitioner's qualification and conduct certificate were forwarded by the manager with his letter dated 29 111966. The appointment was duly approved. But later the educational authorities received complaints that in securing the employment the petitioner had misrepresented his age and there had been tampering with the admission register of B. M. P. V. School; Kanhirakkodu, so far as it concerned the entry relating to the petitioner. After an enquiry by the District Educational Officer, be reported the matter to the 1st respondent, who is the Director of Public Instruction, finding that prima facie there is a case against the petitioner for misrepresenting his date of birth. The 1st respondent considered the matter and decided that the petitioner should be placed under suspension forthwith. He issued Ext. P2 (a) order dated 25 31971 placing the petitioner under suspension. It is that order which is impugned in the original petition. The ground taken by way of challenge to Ext. P2 (a) order is that, according to the proviso to S.12A of the Kerala Education Act, the manager should have been given an opportunity of taking action and that this has not been done in the instant case. For this plea the petitioner relies on the language of S.12A (2). S.12A(1) provides that the Government or such officer not below the rank of an Educational Officer, as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf, shall have power to take disciplinary action against a teacher of an aided school and to impose upon him all or any of the penalties specified in the rules made under the Act. Sub-section (2) deals with power of suspension and it provides that the Government or the officer authorised under sub-section (1) may suspend a teacher when disciplinary proceedings are proposed. The first proviso requires that before taking action under Sub-section (1) the Government or other authorised officer should intimate the manager regarding the circumstances requiring disciplinary action against the teacher concerned and give the manager a reasonable opportunity of taking disciplinary action and the Government or the authorised officer should take action only if the manager fails to take appropriate action. It is evident from the rule itself that the requirement that the manager should first be given as opportunity to take action applies only to action taken under Sub-rule (1). Suspension, no doubt, is in contemplation of an enquiry or disciplinary proceeding. But the provision for suspension is contained in S.12A (2) and the proviso has no reference to that sub-section. Therefore, I cannot agree with the contention of the petitioner's counsel that even for the purpose of suspending, the manager should be first asked to suspend the employee concerned and only on his failure should the Government or authorised officer should exercise any such power. 2. During the course of the bearing the petitioner took time to seek amendment of the Original Petition & that came in by way of C.M.P. 15485/1971. That petition has been beard and allowed by me. The counter also has been filed in answer to the additional ground raised by the amendment and I will now deal with the question thus raised by way of amendment. 3. According to the petitioner, S.12A has no application to disciplinary action or suspension in regard to non-teaching staff as it is expressly limited to teachers of aided schools. If that be the case, the action purported to have been taken by the 1st respondent cannot be justified by reference to S.12A of the Act. 4. In terms S.12 A authorises the Government or any Educational Officer as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf to take action against teachers of aided schools only. It is now conceded by counsel for the 1st respondent that it is not to S.12A that reference has to be made in this context. S.9 of the Kerala Education Act, it is said, empowers the Government to prescribe the number of person to be appointed in the non-teaching establishment of aided schools, their salaries, qualifications and other conditions of service. It is therefore urged by the Director of Public Instruction that by invoking this power Government has framed rules in Chapter XXIV (A) and Chapter XXIV (B) of the Kerala Education Rules. R.7 of Chapter XXIV (B) provides that rules regarding appointment, transfer, probation and discipline contained in Chapter XIV (A) applicable to the teachers of aided schools shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the non-teaching staff. R.7 of Chapter XXIV (B) provides that rules regarding appointment, transfer, probation and discipline contained in Chapter XIV (A) applicable to the teachers of aided schools shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the non-teaching staff. It is therefore said that the rules regarding suspension contained in Chapter XIV (A) are applicable to non-teaching staff of aided schools. 5. It is true that R.7 of Chapter XXIV (B) provides that the rules relating to discipline in regard to the teachers of aided schools will mutatis mutandis apply to non-teaching staff But if there is no power conferred by the statute, such power cannot be conferred by the rules. Therefore the question is whether in the Kerala Education Act there is power to make rules vesting disciplinary control of the non-teaching staff in the Government or any Educational Officer authorised in that behalf, and for that matter keeping under suspension a member of a non-teaching staff. 6. S.11 of the Kerala Education Act expressly confers the power of appointment of teachers of aided schools in the management. This court, in the Full Bench decision reported in The Assistant Educational Officer, Kuthuparamba v. Mammoo (1968 KLT. 556), held that, reading the said provision alongwith S.15 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, as amended by the subsequent Kerala Acts, the power of appointment must necessarily be understood as taking with it the power to suspend or dismiss the person appointed, and therefore this court held that the rules cannot invest the educational authorities or the Government with power to suspend or dismiss a teacher It was noticed that provisions which require approval of Government in certain matters cannot be construed as investing the authority, who is to grant such approval with power to take action as if it is an original authority. 7. S.9 of the Kerala Education Act runs as follows: "9. Salary of teachers, etc., and grants to aided schools. (1) The Government shall pay the salary of all teachers in aided schools direct of through the Headmaster of the school. (2) The Government shall pay the salary of the non-teaching staff of the aided schools appointed before the 31st May 1957 and continuing in office at the commencement of this section on the scales applicable to them immediately before the 31st May 1957. (2) The Government shall pay the salary of the non-teaching staff of the aided schools appointed before the 31st May 1957 and continuing in office at the commencement of this section on the scales applicable to them immediately before the 31st May 1957. If shall be competent for the Government to prescribe the number of persons to be appointed in the non-teaching establishment of aided schools, their salaries, qualifications and other conditions of services. The salary of the persons appointed in the non-teaching establishment in accordance with the rules so prescribed shall be paid by the Government. (3) The Government may pay to the Manager a maintenance grant at such rates as may be prescribed. (4) The Government may make grants in aid for the purchase, improvement and repairs of any land, building or equipment of an aided school." I have extracted the section, since counsel's plea is that it is to that section that power of the Government has to be traced. That enables the Government only to prescribe the conditions of service of teachers. A provision enabling Government to prescribe such conditions of service does not amount to a provision vesting Government with power to take upon itself authority to suspend or dismiss a person. It cannot be said that because Government has got the power to make rules in regard to the conditions of service of teachers, it can make a rule clothing itself with the power to appoint, to suspend or dismiss or to take such other disciplinary proceedings against the non-teaching staff. If the State wants to secure such power it must vest itself with authority in that behalf by appropriate statutory provision in that behalf. S.12A of the Act not being applicable to non-teaching staff and S.9 having not provided such a power in Government, I must hold that it is not open to the 1st respondent to invoke R.7 of Chapter XXIV (B) so as to contend that the power to take action against a member of the non-teaching staff by way of suspension is vested in the Government. If that be the case, the suspension order must fail. Ext. P2 has to be quashed. I hold that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner is inoperative as it is not warranted by the provisions of law. The Original Petition is disposed of as above, but in the circumstances, no costs. 8. If that be the case, the suspension order must fail. Ext. P2 has to be quashed. I hold that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner is inoperative as it is not warranted by the provisions of law. The Original Petition is disposed of as above, but in the circumstances, no costs. 8. I need not, of course, state here that it is for the management to take action, if any, as they choose. That necessarily goes without saying. Allowed.