JUDGMENT : The petitioner was appointed as an LPSA in Keezpayur West L.P. School, with effect from 01.06.2016, by Ext.P1 appointment order. It is not in dispute that the said appointment has not been approved till date. While so, by Ext.P2 show cause notice dated 30.07.2016, the 5th respondent Manager, who appointed the petitioner, asked the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against her in connection with certain complaints received from parents of the school children, with regard to a misconduct committed by the petitioner. Apart from stating that, on a preliminary enquiry conducted by the Manager, he was convinced that there was some substance in the complaints received in relation to the petitioner, there were no details forthcoming in Ext.P2 show cause notice, which gave the petitioner an indication of the specific acts or omissions that constituted the misconduct, that was alleged in Ext.P2 show cause notice. The petitioner accordingly submitted Ext.P3 reply dated 03.08.2016, specifically pointing out that the show cause notice, through the absence of details and materials, as regards the acts or omissions that constituted the misconduct, was vague, and therefore, the petitioner could not submit an effective reply to the said show cause notice. The petitioner was thereafter served with Ext.P4 order dated 18.08.2016 by the 5th respondent Manager, withdrawing the appointment order that was issued to the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Ext.P4 order, inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was not heard before passing Ext.P4 order and further, that there was no memo of charges, that was framed pursuant to Ext.P2 show cause notice and served on the petitioner, from which the petitioner could discern the details of the misconduct that was alleged against her. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 5th respondent, wherein, reference is made to the complaints received from various quarters against the alleged immoral activities of the petitioner. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit that the respondent did not want to state all the facts in the notice so as to enable the petitioner to have a non-stigmatic exit from the school. It is stated that, inasmuch as the petitioner had not given a satisfactory reply to the show cause notice, Ext.P4 order was passed, cancelling her appointment. It is stated that, inasmuch as the petitioner had not given a satisfactory reply to the show cause notice, Ext.P4 order was passed, cancelling her appointment. As regards the holding of a full fledged enquiry, it is stated that, inasmuch as the petitioner was not an approved Teacher, the provisions under the KER, for holding an enquiry against the petitioner as part of the disciplinary proceedings, would not be applicable and hence, there was no illegality in the passing of Ext.P4 order. Reference is also made to Ext.R5(f) communication addressed to the Assistant Educational Officer, by the Manager, intimating him of the withdrawal of the appointment of the petitioner. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent would place reliance on the decisions in Balakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala [ 2008(1) KLT 923 ] and Vijayamma v. State [(1982) KHC 366] to fortify her contention with regard to the provisions of the KER not applying to a Teacher, who was not approved in terms of the Rules. It is also submitted that the decisions are authorities for the proposition that the Manager of the school, who is the appointing authority, can cancel the appointment of a Teacher at any time, before the appointment is approved by the Educational Authorities, without following the procedure contemplated under the KER. On going through the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, I am of the view that, the said decisions cannot be treated as authorities for a proposition that a Manager, who makes an appointment of a Teacher in accordance with the provisions of the KER, can cancel the appointment, without any valid reasons for the same, and without following a fair procedure in connection with the cancellation of the appointment of the Teacher, that deprives the Teacher of a right that is conferred on her through the appointment order. In the decision in Vijayamma v. State [(1982) KHC 366], one of the issues that arose for consideration was, whether on a request made by the Manager of the school for return of an appointment order submitted for approval, the Educational Officer was obliged to return the same. In the decision in Vijayamma v. State [(1982) KHC 366], one of the issues that arose for consideration was, whether on a request made by the Manager of the school for return of an appointment order submitted for approval, the Educational Officer was obliged to return the same. Answering the said issue, this Court found that the Educational Authority has the power either to approve the appointment or decline to approve the appointment and the appointment became effective from the date on which the Teacher joined duty provided it was approved. It was clarified therefore that, if before the actual approval was given by the Educational Officer, the Manager, who is the appointing authority, for a valid reason, wants the appointment order to be returned, the Educational Officer was bound to return the same and his not doing so, would be wrong and illegal. In the decision of the Division Bench in Balakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala [ 2008(1) KLT 923 ], this Court found that the Manager of an aided school had no power to review and cancel the appointment of a Teacher as Headmaster, once the appointment is approved by the Educational Officer. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent relies on this decision to support the proposition that, in the case of a Teacher, whose appointment is not yet approved by the Educational Officer, the corollary position that the Manager of the school can review or cancel the appointment, has to be implied. In my view, both the aforesaid decisions do not expressly find, as indeed they cannot, that the Manager of a school, who has appointed a Teacher, can act in an arbitrary manner, while cancelling the appointment given to the said Teacher in accordance with the provisions of the KER. While it may be a fact that the appointment becomes effective for the purposes of obtaining the benefits under the KER, only on the appointment being approved by the Educational Authorities in the manner stipulated under the Kerala Education Act and Rules, it cannot be said that the appointment per se does not confer on the appointee certain rights with regard to the post to which the appointee has been appointed. At the very least, the rights so conferred on the appointee would include a right against an arbitrary cancellation of the appointment as has happened in the instant case. At the very least, the rights so conferred on the appointee would include a right against an arbitrary cancellation of the appointment as has happened in the instant case. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that, while the 5th respondent Manager acted upon certain information for the purposes of proposing a cancellation of the appointment order issued to the petitioner, the steps taken by the 5th respondent Manager thereafter cannot be viewed as a fair procedure, for the purposes of depriving the petitioner of the rights that accrued to her, consequent to Ext.P1 appointment order. In Ext.P2 show cause notice, that marked the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, there is no disclosure of any of the acts or omissions that allegedly constituted the misconduct for which the petitioner was being proceeded against. It was under those circumstances that, when the petitioner was called upon to prefer the reply to the show cause notice, she expressed her inability to furnish a detailed reply, since the show cause notice itself was vague. It is notwithstanding the said reply, and the expression of inability by the petitioner to prefer a detailed reply, that Ext.P4 order was passed by the Manager, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it was not open to the Manager of the school, who is an authority recognised under the statute, to act arbitrarily in the matter of cancellation of the appointment, and at any rate to do so without following a fair procedure, that would have enabled the petitioner to respond to the allegations that were made against her through the complaints stated to have been received by the 5th respondent Manager. I also note that, the petitioner was not even heard prior to the passing of Ext.P4 order. I, therefore, quash Ext.P4 order and direct the 5th respondent, if he so intends to proceed with any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, to furnish the petitioner with details of the acts/omissions constituting the alleged misconduct, and thereafter giving her opportunity to reply to the said facts and allegations, before taking any decision in the matter. I, therefore, quash Ext.P4 order and direct the 5th respondent, if he so intends to proceed with any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, to furnish the petitioner with details of the acts/omissions constituting the alleged misconduct, and thereafter giving her opportunity to reply to the said facts and allegations, before taking any decision in the matter. It is made clear that any proceedings against the petitioner shall ensure a fairness in action and shall also comply with the applicable rules pertaining to the pursuit of disciplinary action against teachers in an aided school. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.