Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 43 (KER)

Rajalakshmi Amma v. State of Kerala

1996-01-23

JOSEPH

body1996
Judgment :- Joseph, J. During the year 1985, a centrally sponsored scheme, viz, the scheme for Vocational Higher Secondary Education, had been introduced in the State of Kerala by the Government in some of the selected aided schools under a separate Directorate, viz. the Directorate of Vocational Secondary Education. The Vocational Higher Secondary Scheme and the staff of the vocational higher secondary schools are under the administrative control of the Director, Vocational Higher Secondary Education. As per G.O. (MS) No. 53/91/G. Edn. dated 30-3-1991, Government appointed the Director, Vocational Higher Secondary Education as the designated authority to approve the appointments made by the manager to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the vocational higher secondary schools established under the scheme. A selection committee also is constituted to make selection of staff members to the vocational higher secondary schools with the Director as the Government nominee in the said committee. As per G.O. (MS) No. 131/91/G. Edn., dated 20-8-1991, the headmasters of the aided schools converted into Vocational Higher Secondary schools were re-designated as the Principal of the institution. The counter signing authority of the salary bills of the staff of the' vocational higher secondary schools including the special pay of the Principal is the Assistant Director of region concerned. 2. The K.S.M. High School (aided) to which the petitioner is the Manager, was converted as a Vocational Higher Secondary School (aided) as per G.O. (MS) 163/927 G.Edn. dated 3-9-1992. In the case of the said school, the counter signing authority of the salary bills of the staff and the special pay of the principal is the Assistant Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education, Regional Office, Kollam. Before conversion of the said school as a Vocational Higher Secondary School, thc4th respondent took charge as Headmistress of the K.S.M. High School on 19-S>1988. While so, the Government accorded sanction to start vocational higher secondary school with effect from 14-9-1992 and thus, the 4th respondent was re-designated as Principal of the said school and the said school itself was converted into a Vocational Higher Secondary School. 3. While the 4th respondent functioning as Principal of the institution, the petitioner had appointed her daughter by name Anitha as a Lower Division Clerk in the school But according to the Principal, the 41h respondent, she is irregular in her attendance in the school while working as a Lower Division Clerk. 3. While the 4th respondent functioning as Principal of the institution, the petitioner had appointed her daughter by name Anitha as a Lower Division Clerk in the school But according to the Principal, the 41h respondent, she is irregular in her attendance in the school while working as a Lower Division Clerk. Therefore, 4th respondent had sent Ext. R4(a) letter dated 16-6-1994 addressed to the 2nd respondent, Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education intimating him about the misconduct of the said L.D.Clerk and requested him to take necessary action in the matter. The 4th respondent also requested the Director to exempt from discharging her functions as Principal of the institution. This was followed by Ext. R4(b) letter dated 8-8-1994 addressed to the Assistant Director, Vocational Higher Secondary Education, Kollam informing him about the alleged misconduct on the part of the Lower Division Clerk and requested him also to take necessary action in the matter. Since no effective steps have been taken by the Director and the Assistant Director, the 4th respondent had sent Ext. R4(c) letter dated 22-8-1994 addressed to the Circle Inspector of Police, Ezhukone requesting his assistance for the proper conduct of the School without any disturbances from the. son-in-law of the petitioner manager, who is the husband of the said Lower Division Clerk. The 4th respondent also had requested necessary police assistance for proper conduct of the school. 4. Therefore, the petitioner, who is the manager of the said school, issued a memo of charges dated 28-9-1994 against the 4th respondent and directed her to submit the explanation to the memo of charges. On receipt of the said memo of charges, 4th " respondent submitted her explanation dated 10-10-1994 to the manager, denying the entire charges levelled against her. In the meantime, 4th respondent had sent Ext. R4(d) letter dt.3-10-1994 addressed to the Assistant Director again requesting him to relieve her from the duties of the Principal of the institution because of the non-co-operation of . a section of the staff instigated by the Lower Division Clerk, her husband and also the manager. 5. On the basis of the memo of charges, petitionerissuedExt. R4(d) letter dt.3-10-1994 addressed to the Assistant Director again requesting him to relieve her from the duties of the Principal of the institution because of the non-co-operation of . a section of the staff instigated by the Lower Division Clerk, her husband and also the manager. 5. On the basis of the memo of charges, petitionerissuedExt. P1 order of suspension to the 4th respondent on 15-10-1994 placing her under suspension for a period of 15 days and requested the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam, the 3rd respondent hereon to conduct an investigation into the grounds of suspension and accord sanction for extending the period beyond 15 days as required under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV KER. On receipt of the order of suspension and request, 3rd respondent, Deputy Director issued notice to the 4th respondent as well as the manager and other teachers on 24-10-1994 regarding his proposed investigation into the grounds of suspension. Thereafter, 3rd respondent conducted a preliminary investigation into the grounds of - suspension and passed Ext. P2 order dt. 28-10-1994 permitting the manager to place the 4th respondent under suspension beyond the period of 15 days. On the basis of the said order, petitioner issued Ext. P8 order dt. 30-10-1994 placing the 4th respondent under suspension during the tendency of the disciplinary proceedings. 6. Thereafter, as requested by the petitioner, the Deputy Director of Education, 3rd respondent, conducted a detailed enquiry in respect of the charges framed against the 4th respondent as required under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules. He had examined wimesses at the enquiry, obtained statements from the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent and other teachers and students. On the basis of the evidence collected by the 3rd respondent, 3rd respondent submitted an enquiry report, Ext. P4 dated 14-3-1995 to the petitioner, the manager of the school, wherein he has found that none of the charges framed against the 4th respondent are proved even though he has stated that in respect of charge No. 2,4th respondent had caused sonic del ay in the matter of enchasing the bill and payment of the said amount to the Lower Division Clerk. In Ext. In Ext. P4, the Deputy Director had further stated that there is no reason to continue the 4th respondent under suspension anymore and therefore, ordered her re-instatement in service as required under Rule 67(8A) of Chapter XIVA K.E.R. 7. Dissatisfied with the said finding, the petitioner had filled Ext. P5 revision before the Government under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA K.E.R. requesting the Government to set aside the direction issued by the Deputy Director who reinstated the 4th respondent in service and cancelling the suspension. 8. Thereafter, Government considered the request made by the petitioner and passed Ext. P6 order dated 18-4-1995 wherein Government had found that the 3rd respondent, Deputy Director of Education is not competent to enquire into the allegation levelled against the 4th respondent since the Vocational Higher Secondary Section of the School is under the administrative control of the Director, Vocational Higher Secondary Education, 2nd respondent. Therefore, according to Government, 3rd respondent, Deputy Director of Education is not at all competent to enquire into those allegations levelled against the 4th respondent. Government therefore, cancelled Ext. P2 order issued by the Deputy Director of Education dated 28-10-1994 giving permission to the petitioner for placing the 4th respondent under suspension for a period beyond 15 days and also the enquiry report made by the Deputy Director of Education evidenced by Ext. P4 dated 14-3-1995. After cancelling Exts. P2 and P4, Government directed the 2nd respondent, the Director, Vocational Higher Secondary Education, to conduct an enquiry into the allegations levelled against the 4th respondent and suggested suitable action, if necessary. 9. Thereafter Government issued Ext. P7 order dated 24-6-1995 directing the petitioner to reinstate the 4th respondent (under suspension) within 10 days of the said order in the light of Ext. P6 order. Petitioner challenges in this Original Petition the validity of Ext. P7 order and seeks to quash the same by a writ of certiorari. She has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to refrain from enquiring into the matter of suspension and disciplinary proceedings taken by him against the 4th respondent. She has also sought for an interim order of stay of Ext. P7 order (even though petitioners has originally prayed for quashing Ext. P6 order, but subsequently, prayed for an amendment to the said prayer as per C.M.P.No.25237/95 wherein she prayed for setting aside Ext. She has also sought for an interim order of stay of Ext. P7 order (even though petitioners has originally prayed for quashing Ext. P6 order, but subsequently, prayed for an amendment to the said prayer as per C.M.P.No.25237/95 wherein she prayed for setting aside Ext. P7 instead of Ext. P6 order). This Court as per an interim order in C.M.P.No.1935 6/95 dated 12-7-1995 granted an inhere in stay of Ext. P7 order passed by the Government directing reinstatement of the 4th respondent in service. The said order of stay is even now continuing in force. 10. According to the petitioner, there is no power conferred on the Government to issue Ext. P7 direction to reinstate the 4th respondent in service. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said order had been passed by the Government in total violation of the principles of natural justice since the manager was not given an opportunity of being heard by the Government before passing Ext. P7 order. It is also stated by the petitioner that since the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules are not applicable in the case of teachers of the Vocational Higher Secondary schools are concerned including the case of the 4th respondent, there is no power vested in Government to order reinstatement of the 4th respondent appointed by the petitioner as principal of the school and the power of appointment takes in the power of suspension and dismissal also. 11. On receipt of notice from this Court, on behalf of the first respondent a counter affidavit has 'been tiled by the Under Secretary, Government, General Education Department wherein it is slated that the allegations levelled against the 4th respondent are purely based on Vocational Higher Secondary Section of the school which comes under the purview of the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education. The Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education is Government nominee of the selection committee of the staff and it is the Director who is the competent authority to approve the appointment of staff of the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools are concerned. The staff of the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools are coining under the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education as they are not coming under the purview of the Kerala Education Rules. The staff of the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools are coining under the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education as they are not coming under the purview of the Kerala Education Rules. The Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education is having an administrative control over the staff and schools under the vocational higher secondary scheme and it is specifically stated in the counter affidavit that a separate draft service rules for the staff of the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools are in active consideration of the Government. It is also slated in the affidavit that Government considered the entire matter in Ext. P6 order and ordered the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education to conduct an enquiry into the allegations levelled against the principal, the 4th respondent. But the enquiry could not be conducted due to the reason that the schools were closed and since the matter is pending consideration before this Court, 2nd respondent is not in a position to conduct an enquiry in the matter and therefore, requested the Government to clarify whether such enquiry can be conducted as the matter is under consideration before this Court. Ext. P7 order is passed on the basis of stay sought, by the manager on the enquiry report of the Deputy Director and therefore, there is no need for hearing the manager. Government also denied he statement that they did not have any disciplinary control over the school or the manager and the Principal and teaching and non-teaching staff of (aided) Vocational Higher Secondary Schools. It is further Slated in the counter affidavit that the staff in the school were selected as per G.O. (MS) 53/91/G.Edn. dated 30-3-1991 and the salary of the Vocational Higher Secondary school staff are being paid from the Government Exchequer. The approval of appointment of the stall is being made by the' Director, Vocational Higher Secondary Education on behalf of the Government. All infrastructural facility for the conduct of the vocational higher secondary schools met by the management of the schools are reimbursable from Government accounts as per Rules and therefore, according to the Government, Government have control over the school and the manager and also the principal and teaching and non-teaching staff. The counter affidavit concluded by saying that there is no justification to place the 4th respondent under suspension and they justify Ext. P7 order. 11. The counter affidavit concluded by saying that there is no justification to place the 4th respondent under suspension and they justify Ext. P7 order. 11. On behalf of the 4th respondent also, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed . wherein it is stated that there is absolutely no justification for the petitioner to place her under suspension and also to continue the order of suspension. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner requested the Deputy Director of Education to conduct ah investigation into the grounds of suspension and a detailed enquiry is contemplated under Rule 67(8) and 75 of Chapter XIV KER. Pursuant to the said request, the Deputy Director conducted a detailed enquiry and found that none of the charges levelled against her is proved. Therefore, the Deputy Director directed the manager to reinstate the 41h respondent in service since there is no justification to continue the principal under suspension. According to the 41h respondent, the order passed by the Deputy Director is perfectly justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. Since Ext. P2 order was set aside by the Government in Ext. P6 order, there is no legal or factual basis on which the 4th respondent can now be kept under suspension. The basis of Ext. P8 order to continue her under suspension was set aside by the Government in Ext. P6. Therefore, there is absolutely no bonafides in keeping the 4th respondent under suspension. The charges levelled against the petitioner enquired into by the Deputy Director are found as unsustainableI and therefore, there is no justification to keep the Principal under continued suspension. Itis further slated that the Government have absolute control and authority to interfere with the matter. It is the definite case of the 4th respondent that managers of Vocational Higher Secondary Schools have no absolute authority to keep the Principal or the staff under suspension for an indefinite period. The State Has control over the school and its manager under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Itis stated by the 4th respondent that direction issued by the Government reinstating the 4th respondent in service is perfectly legal and fully justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. The State Has control over the school and its manager under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Itis stated by the 4th respondent that direction issued by the Government reinstating the 4th respondent in service is perfectly legal and fully justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. The 4th respondent, therefore, submitted that the interim order of stay granted by this Court may be vacated since there is no legal or factual basis at present to place the 4th respondent under suspension merely on the basis of charges levelled against 'her, which were found to be unsustainable by the 3rd respondent, Deputy Director of Education. 12.1 heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Adv. Slid K. Chandrasekharan as well as the learned Addl. Advocate General, Shri V.K. Beeran for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 13. Admittedly, the provisions contained in the Kerala Education Act and the Rules are not applicable in the case of Vocational Higher Secondary Schools are concerned. This fact had been admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 also. But it is the definite case of the State that they have granted permission for establishment of a Vocational Higher Secondary School in exercise of the executive powers of the State conferred on them under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Art.162 reads as follows : "Art.162. Extent of executive power of State :- Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive powerful a Suite shall extend to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws: Provided that in any matter with respect to which the Legislature of a State and Parliament have power to make laws, the executive power of the State shall be subject to, and limited by, the executive power .expressly conferred by this Constitution or by any law made by Parliament upon the Union or authorities thereof." Thus, the executive power of the State is extended to all matters with respect to which the Legislature has power to make laws. Admittedly, 'education' is a subject which the State Legislature has power to make laws. The facts narrated above would amply prove that the State had introduced the Vocational Higher Secondary Education in the state in the Year 1985 under a separate Directorate, viz. Admittedly, 'education' is a subject which the State Legislature has power to make laws. The facts narrated above would amply prove that the State had introduced the Vocational Higher Secondary Education in the state in the Year 1985 under a separate Directorate, viz. The Directorate of Vocational Higher Secondary Education. Government as per G.O. (MS)53/91/G.Edn. dated 30-3-1991 appointed the Director, Vocational Higher Secondary Education as the designated authority to represent the Government in the selection committee for selection of leaching and non-teaching staff for vocational higher secondary schools. As per the said order, it is the Director, Vocational Higher Secondary Education who is the competent authority to approve the appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff made, by the manager. The Assistant Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education of the region is the countersigning authority of the salary bills of the staff of the Vocational Higher Secondary School in that region. Thus in the matter of sanctioning of the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools, selection and appointment of teachers in the said schools and approval of those appointment are being made as directed by the Government in the manner provided by executive orders. The manager of a Vocational Higher Secondary School is not an independent authority who can establish a Vocational Higher Secondary School at his discretion and make appointment of the teaching and non-teaching staff in the said school. But right of the Manager in establishing a school and conducting the same are subject to specific control and restrictions imposed by the Government. According to the first respondent, the entire expenses necessary for the conduct of the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools in the State are being met from a Central fund which was made available at the disposal of the Government. The amounts spent by the manager for providing the infra-structure for the conduct of the Vocational Higher Secondary School are being reimbursed by the Government, even though in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that Government so far, had not reimbursed the said amount to any Manager of the Vocational Higher Secondary School. But it is the definite case of the State Government that the entire money that may be pent by the management is reimbursable to the management by the Government under the scheme. But it is the definite case of the State Government that the entire money that may be pent by the management is reimbursable to the management by the Government under the scheme. Thus it is established that State has a pervasive control over the establishment and administration of-the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools in the State and the Manager is not an independent autonomous authority to establish any Vocational Higher Secondary School in the State, conferring on the students who have undergone training any diplomas or certificates and in the matter of appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff of the said school. In the light of the above facts, it has to be declared mat the Manager of the Vocational Higher Secondary School cannot act arbitrarily while dealing with members of the teaching and non-teaching staff. No such arbitrary power can be conferred on such managers also under the scheme. It is the Government who has to decide whether an aided school governed by the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder would be converted into a Vocational Higher Secondary School and it is on the basis of such a decision, the petitioner's school, K.S.M. High School also was converted into Vocational Higher Secondary School by the Government as per G.O.(MS)No.163/92/G. Edn. dated 3-9-1992. Therefore, the managers of the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools sanctioned by the Government also have to act fairly and conduct the school in such a manner only in accordance with well- accepted norms complying with principles of natural justice and fair play, even in the absence of any statutory rules or specific executive orders regarding the conditions of service of the teaching and non-teaching stall. 13 A. In the light of the above principle, the action of the petitioner in placing the 4th respondent under suspension and keeping her under suspension has to be viewed and the orders passed by the Government evidenced by Exts. P6 and P7 have to be assessed and considered by this Court in this proceedings initiated by the petitioner who is the manager of the Vocational Higher Secondary School. 14. The petitioner has no case that she can act arbitrarily in the matter of dealing with the 4th respondent who is functioning as the Principal of the institution. As a matter of fact, as can be seen from Ext. P1 order of suspension, Ext. 14. The petitioner has no case that she can act arbitrarily in the matter of dealing with the 4th respondent who is functioning as the Principal of the institution. As a matter of fact, as can be seen from Ext. P1 order of suspension, Ext. P2 order extending the period of suspension, Ext. P4 enquiry report, petitioner also proceeded under the impression that, the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules arc applicable in the case of the 4th respondent. She sought for permission to place the 4th respondent under suspension for a period exceeding 15" days. She has also requested the Deputy Director of Education, the 3rd respondent to conduct an investigation into grounds relating to the suspension. She has passed Ext. P8 order extending the period of suspension on the basis of the permission granted by the Deputy Director of Education. She had further requested the Deputy Director to conduct a detailed enquiry as contemplated in Rule 75 Chapter XIV K.E.R. into the charges levelled against the 4th respondent. Dissatisfied with the findings in Ms enquiry report, she has tiled even a revision before the Government under rule 92 of Chapter XIV K.E.R. and sought for a stay of the directions issued by the enquiry officer in Ext. P4 enquiry report. Thus, it can be seen that petitioner has no case before the authorities including the Government in Ext. P5 revision that the Deputy Director of Education has no jurisdiction or competency in enquiring into the matter or passing appropriate orders. A case, which was not put forward by the petitioner before the Government was accepted by the Government in Ext. P6 and found that the Deputy Director has no jurisdiction to go into the matter, since it is the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education alone has the competency to decide the question and further directed the said Director to enquire into the mailer. Such a direction would be perfectly justified under Article 162 of the Constitution of India in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in. L. NarendreiNalh (AIR 1971 SC 2560). Such a direction would be perfectly justified under Article 162 of the Constitution of India in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in. L. NarendreiNalh (AIR 1971 SC 2560). 14 A. The power to impose any punishment on the teachers of the Vocational Higher Secondary School by the Manager-Is not an absolute power as wrongly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though the power of appointment shall take-in the power of dismissal of suspension as laid down in Mohd. Rushid Ahmad v. State of U.P. (AIR 1979 SC 592). But such a power can be exercised by the manager only fairly and reasonably and not in any arbitrary manner as it is done in the present case. Petitioner has no case before the authorities that he can place the 4th respondent under suspension for any indefinite period by virtue of the power of appointment conferred on her. As stated earlier, even the power of appointment is circumscribed by the procedure prescribed by the Government. The teaching and non-teaching staff were selected by a committee with the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education as the nominee of the Government in the said selection committee. The appointment of persons who were selected shall also be approved by the Director and the salary bills of t hose teachers have to be counter-signed by the Assistant Director. Thus, it can be seen that the power of appointment of teachers-conferred on the Manager is not without any restrictions. In so long as such a power is not. absolute power, there is no justification to place a teacher also under suspension for any indefinite period as wrongly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and that too even without permitting to conduct any enquiry by the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education as ordered by the Government. The theory of master and servant put forward by the manager is, therefore, only to be discarded in the case of the petitioner and the 4th respondent. There is no legal or factual basis to substantiate the said contention. 15. In the light of the above findings, the direction issued by the Government in Ext. P6 order to conduct the enquiry in the matter by the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education has to be upheld as perfectly valid, legal and issued with jurisdiction. For. There is no legal or factual basis to substantiate the said contention. 15. In the light of the above findings, the direction issued by the Government in Ext. P6 order to conduct the enquiry in the matter by the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education has to be upheld as perfectly valid, legal and issued with jurisdiction. For. a proper functioning and administration of the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools and to prevent any arbitrary action on the part of the Managers of the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools against the teaching and non-teaching staff working in the above schools, it has to be held that the Government have such a power to order an enquiry by the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education or by any' other competent authority. By the said direction, none of the rights of the petitioner as manager of the school had been affected. To ascertain whether there was any justification to place the 4th respondent under suspension and to decide whether there is any justifiable ground to keep the 4th respondent under suspension, such an enquiry by an authority other than the manager is only justified. But the enquiry ordered by the Government could not be conducted by the Director since the matter is pending consideration before this Court in this proceedings and this Court stayed the implementation of Ext. P7 order as per an order dated 2.7.1995 in C.M.P.No.19356/ 95. But I sec no justification to delay the matter any further since the 41h respondent is still under suspension from 15.10.1994 and now more than 15 months have clapped after her suspension, which was found to be quite unwarranted by the Deputy Director of Education in Ext. P4 report as early as on 14.3.1995. The 2nd respondent, Director, Vocational Higher Secondary Education shall conduct the enquiry as ordered by the Government in Ext. P6 order and that a decision in the matter and whether mere is any justification to keep the 4th respondent under suspension and also whether the charges framed against the 4th respondent are established or not. Such an enquiry and decision shall be taken by the 2nd respondent as. expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Such an enquiry and decision shall be taken by the 2nd respondent as. expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The Director, Vocational Higher Secondary Education is also directed to pass appropriate orders regarding the period of suspension of the 4th respondent and payment of her salary and allowances during the said period. Needless to say that before passing any such orders, petitioner as well as the 4th respondent shall be given an opportunity of personal hearing by the 2nd respondent and the decision so taken by the 2nd respondent shall be binding on the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent. 16. With regard to Ext. P7 order, it has to be held that there is no. basis before the Government directing the petitioner to reinstate the 4th respondent in service. As a matter of fact, before the Government, there was no material to come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the 4th respondent are not justifiable warranting imposition of any penalty on the 4th respondent. This is more so since the Government has set aside the enquiry conducted by the 3rd respondent, Deputy Director of Education and also set aside the enquiry report evidenced by Ext. P4. When the said enquiry and the enquiry report were set aside by Government, there was no material, before the Government to come to the conclusion that the 4th respondent is not guilty of any of the charges and ordering her reinstatement in service. Moreover, before passing Ext. P7 order, Government have not heard the petitioner, who is the Manager of the school. Therefore, there is sufficient force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext. P7 order is passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is staled that Ext. P7 order is passed on the application for stay submitted by the petitioner along with Ext. P5. Ext. P5 revision itself had been disposed of by Ext. P6 order dated 18-4-1995. After disposal of the said revision, I see no justification for the Government to pass orders on the application for stay presented by the petitioner alongwith Ext. P5. Moreover, in Ext. P7, what has been referred to is the order, Ext. P6. P5. Ext. P5 revision itself had been disposed of by Ext. P6 order dated 18-4-1995. After disposal of the said revision, I see no justification for the Government to pass orders on the application for stay presented by the petitioner alongwith Ext. P5. Moreover, in Ext. P7, what has been referred to is the order, Ext. P6. In the said order, Government had not directed the manager to reinstate the 4th respondent as Principal of the school. In the absence of any such direction in Ext. P6,1 see no justification for the Government to pass Ext. P7 order on the basis of Ext. P6 and direct the manager to reinstate- the 4th respondent in service. Ext. P7 has therefore, to be set aside. While ordering reinstatement of the 41h respondent in service, Government also cannot act arbitrarily. Before the Government, the only material that was available is the charges framed by the manager against the 4th respondent at the time when Ext. P7 order was passed. Government have no case that prima facie the charges levelled against the 4th respondent are not sustainable or at any rate, sufficient to place the Principal under suspension. Government have not applied their mind on the facts of the case while ordering reinstatement of the 4th respondent in service. Under such circumstances reinstatement of the 4th respondent in service can be ordered only on the basis of the enquiry report and the decisions by the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education in the matter of conducting an enquiry as ordered by the Government in Ext. P6 order. 17. Before parting with this case, I am anxious to bring to the notice of the Government the fact that it is high time for the Government to frame separate service Rules for the staff of Vocational Higher Secondary Education attached to the aided schools. As stated earlier, Government had introduced the Vocational Higher Secondary Scheme in the State as early as in the year 1985 and it is the definite case of the State Government in their counter affidavit that the staff of the Vocational Higher Secondary Education attached to the aided schools are coming under the Director, Vocational Higher Secondary Education as they are not coming under the purview of the Kerala Education Rules. Thus, according to the Government, the teaching and non-teaching staff attached to the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools are not governed by the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules. In the counter affidavit, it is the definite case of the State Government that a separate service rules for the staff of the Vocational Higher Secondary Education attached to the aided schools arc under active consideration before the Government. As stated earlier, Vocational Higher Secondary Education Scheme had been introduced from the year 1985 onwards and more than 10 years have-elapsed as on today. Therefore, it is high time for the Government to frame necessary service rules for the staff of the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools attached to the aided schools since it is a matter affecting large number of teaching and non-teaching staff attached to the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools in the State. Taking into consideration the large interest involved in the matter, I further direct the first respondent, State of Kerala, to prescribe service rules for the teaching and non-teaching staff attached to the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools in the State as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Registrar of this Court is, therefore, directed to forward a copy. of this judgment, to the Chief Secretary to Government, Thiruvananthapuram for complying with the above directions. Original Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.