Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in O. P. No. 5153 of 1974 is the Manager of a High School. The 4th respondent in the O. P. had worked as a teacher in that school for 9 and odd months during the school year 1965 66. She was then working as a lower grade Hindi Teacher In the year 1972 there arose a regular vacancy of a Hindi Teacher by the retirement of the then existing incumbent. The petitioner appointed the 5th respondent as teacher in the vacancy and applied to the Educational Authorities for approval. The 4th respondent claimed a preferential right of appointment to the post concerned under R.51A of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules. The D. E. O. refused to approve the appointment of the 5th respondent and directed the Manager to appoint the 4th respondent to that post. 2. The matter was taken up by the Manager before the 2nd respondent-Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum who also rendered a decision in favour of the 4th respondent. A revision was filed by the Manager before the Government which was ultimately dismissed. These orders of the 3rd respondent, 2nd respondent and 1st respondent were challenged before this court in O. P. 1734 of 1973. This court set aside the orders and remitted back the case to the 3rd respondent viz, the D. E. O who was directed to consider the whole question from the proper angle. When the matter went back before the D. E. O she refused to hear the advocate of the petitioner saying that she is conducting an enquiry and that the petitioner has not obtained prior sanction to engage an advocate in the enquiry and if the petitioner is allowed to engage an advocate it will amount to denial of natural justice to the 4th respondent. After hearing the petitioner, the 4th respondent and the 5th respondent the third respondent upheld the claim of the 4th respondent. Against the order of the 3rd respondent the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent rejected the appeal and a revision was also filed before the Government which was also rejected. 3. In the meanwhile proceedings were taken. against the petitioner for disqualifying him from holding the post of Manager in view of his alleged non-compliance with the departmental authorities' orders. The 2nd respondent rejected the appeal and a revision was also filed before the Government which was also rejected. 3. In the meanwhile proceedings were taken. against the petitioner for disqualifying him from holding the post of Manager in view of his alleged non-compliance with the departmental authorities' orders. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this court for setting aside the orders of respondents 1 to 3 and for a writ of mandamus for compelling the 3rd respondent to approve the appointments of the 5th respondent as lower grade Hindi Teacher in the petitioner's school from 12th June 1972 onwards. 4. Aggrieved by the same proceedings the 5th respondent in O.P. 5153 of 1974 has filed O.P. 455/1975. 5. I am not going into the details of the case or contentions of the parties in the matter in view of the fact that I consider it was wrong on the part of the D E.O. not to have allowed the Manager to be represented by an advocate. No doubt, the same facility should be given to the 4th respondent also, if she wants to engage an advocate. A reasonable opportunity contemplated under R.7 (1) of Chap.3 of the K.E.R. is not an empty formality, but the opportunity afforded should be effective. The third respondent has stated that there is no rule of law to allow the Manager to have the assistance of a legal practitioner in a domestic enquiry of this kind and there is statutory prohibition for the employment of legal practitioner by the teachers on such occasion. 6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that whatever may be the irregularity committed by the D.E.O. no manifest injustice has been done in this case and the petitioner had not taken the question of refusal by the D.E.O. to allow him to employ an advocate as a serious ground to question the order of the authority. 7. The 3rd respondent points out that as per R.75 (5) of Chap.14A of K.E.R. it would be a denial of natural justice to allow one of the parties to employ legal practitioner and deny the benefit to the others. This is an absolutely wrong view of the law. R.75 referred to deals with procedure for imposing major penalties on aided school teachers. The present proceedings are not disciplinary proceedings which would attract R.75. This is an absolutely wrong view of the law. R.75 referred to deals with procedure for imposing major penalties on aided school teachers. The present proceedings are not disciplinary proceedings which would attract R.75. In the light of this view, I need not go into the merits of the matter. 8. The order of the D.E.O. Ext. P11, as confirmed by Ext. P13 order of the 2nd respondent and Ext. P17 order of the 1st respondent, is hereby set aside. The D.E.O. will conduct a fresh enquiry into the matter allowing the parties to be represented by counsel if they so require and affording them sufficient opportunity to state their case. The Manager has also questioned in this O.P. the proceedings taken to disqualify him from holding the post of Manager. But it is submitted now that that order has been subsequently rescinded. So I am not going into that question. 9. In O.P. 455/75 no further orders are called for in view of my decision in O.P. 5153/1974. As stated earlier O.P. 455/1975 is by the 5th respondent in O.P. 5153/74 and she questions therein the same orders of the D.E.O., Regional Deputy Director and the Government which are impugned in the other O.P. I have set aside those orders in O.P. 5153/1974 and ordered a fresh enquiry. 10. The original petitions are disposed of as above, but there will be no order as to costs. Allowed.