JUDGMENT : P.M. MANOJ, J. 1. The above writ appeal is preferred assailing judgment dated 15.01.2024 in WP (C) No. 4278 of 2015. 2. The issue involved in this case is with respect to recovery of the loss caused to the Government due to bogus admissions and sanctioning of additional divisions in the school and its consequential recovery. 3. The writ petition was preferred by the Manager, being aggrieved by the recovery initiated as per Ext.P7, P8, P9 and rejection of the revision by the Government as per Ext.P11 on the allegation that there was violation of Rule 7(4) of Chapter III of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (for short ‘KER’). 4. The 1st respondent herein is the approved Manager of AMUP School, Akhalad under Chavakad Educational Sub District, Thrissur District. After staff fixation, 30 posts were sanctioned as per Ext.P1. However, the Super Check Cell (Malabar Region), Kozhikode on 24.11.2004 conducted a surprise inspection on the basis of complaints received. On that day, due to the bus strike, the classes were not functioning. Thereby the physical verification was not conducted. Later, on 14.02.2005 the Super Check Cell conducted another visit and found that 661 students were absent in the classes out of 1172 on that day. Along with that, some other irregularities, including bogus admissions, were noticed. Thereafter a further visit was conducted on 10.03.2005 to verify the correctness of the facts noticed in the previous visit. During that visit, it was found that the students of suspected bogus admissions were absent on that day also. On enquiry, it revealed that those admissions are only recordical; ultimately, the Super Check Cell detected 320 bogus admissions in the school. 5. In the light of such findings of bogus admissions, the revised staff fixation orders were issued, thereby resulting in a reduction of one class division each in Standard II, III, IV and V and two divisions in Standard VI, VII and reduced 8 posts of primary teachers and one post of Arabic Teacher. Thereby caused huge loss to the exchequer by way of salary paid to the 9 excess teachers. The said re-fixation was challenged by the 1st respondent unsuccessfully. Consequently, sanctioned 22 divisions excluding 320 pupils and reduced 8 class divisions and 8 posts of primary teachers during 2004-05. 6. Thereby caused huge loss to the exchequer by way of salary paid to the 9 excess teachers. The said re-fixation was challenged by the 1st respondent unsuccessfully. Consequently, sanctioned 22 divisions excluding 320 pupils and reduced 8 class divisions and 8 posts of primary teachers during 2004-05. 6. Initially, it was decided to recoup the loss sustained by the exchequer from the Headmistress, who was responsible for the irregularities. Against this, the Headmistress approached this Court and obtained a favourable order as there were no disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Headmistress in accordance with the rules prescribed and thereby declared that she is not liable to pay any amount to the Government. In the light of such findings, the recovery from the Headmistress was dropped. However, the loss caused to the exchequer was due to adopting unfair means and retaining/obtaining the desired number of divisions by fraud and misrepresentation of facts, bogus admissions, irregular retention, etc. Such irregularities cannot be done without the knowledge and permission of the Manager. The Manager could not produce any substantial evidence to defend the arguments of the Super Check Cell. Thereby it is found that under sub-rule 4 of Rule 7 Chapter III KER, the Manager is responsible for the irregularities that lead to the monetary loss to Teachers/Government. 7. Pursuant to such a finding, it was decided to recover the loss sustained by the teachers/Government from the Manager under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act in force at that point of time. This is specifically relying on Clause (d) of sub-rule 4 of Rule 7 Chapter III KER. Accordingly, Exts.P7, P8 and P9 were issued. This was challenged in WP (C) No. 7115/2014. 8. The writ petition was disposed of directing the 1st appellant to take appropriate steps for fixing the liability against the 1st respondent, if it is sustainable under the provisions of KER and not to take steps to realise the amount without affording an opportunity to the 1st respondent to object any such proposal and after affording him an opportunity of personal hearing. The revision preferred by the 1st respondent was also rejected as per Ext.P11. That is challenged along with Exts.P7, P8 and P9. That was allowed by judgment dated 15.01.2024 in WP (C) No. 4278 of 2015. 9. The revision preferred by the 1st respondent was also rejected as per Ext.P11. That is challenged along with Exts.P7, P8 and P9. That was allowed by judgment dated 15.01.2024 in WP (C) No. 4278 of 2015. 9. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that by Ext.P10 judgment this Court has granted liberty to proceed against the Manager. The Manager has committed serious irregularities and caused monetary loss to Teachers/Government which is in violation of sub-rule 4 of Rule 7 Chapter III KER. Which is recoverable from the Manager under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act in force at that point of time, as the loss occurred can be treated as an arrears of public revenue due on land as provided under the provision. The Manager has specifically violated Clause (d) of sub-rule 4 of Rule 7 by making irregular appointments and getting them approved by the Educational Officers concerned. That is the reason for initiating action against the Manager invoking the provisions of Rule 7 Chapter III KER. 10. It was further contended that as per Ext.P10 judgment Exts.P7, P8 and P9 were quashed and granted liberty to the Government to take appropriate steps for fixing liability against the Manager, if it is sustainable under the provisions of KER, and to take steps to realise the amount after affording opportunity to the petitioner to object any such proposal and after affording him an opportunity of personal hearing. In the light of said direction, Government considered the revision preferred by the Manager and rejected the same as per Ext.P11. Rejection of Ext.P11 was after affording a personal hearing and examining the supportive documents and relevant provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules and also in compliance with the direction in Ext.P10. It is contended that without properly assessing the facts of bogus admission and loss caused to the exchequer, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition. 11. It is a fact that due to the bogus admissions and inflated figures of student strength and creation of posts; the Manager alone is benefited. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has misinterpreted Rule 7(4) of Chapter III KER, holding that there must be an adjudication of the actual amount to be recovered. In the present case it was held that there was no such adjudication, and the impugned orders were set aside. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has misinterpreted Rule 7(4) of Chapter III KER, holding that there must be an adjudication of the actual amount to be recovered. In the present case it was held that there was no such adjudication, and the impugned orders were set aside. In fact, after adjudication, 8 primary school teachers' posts and one Arabic Teacher’s post were found to be in excess, and the salary paid to those teachers is in excess as well as loss to the public exchequer. That amount was sought to be recovered. 12. In response to that, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri. U. Balagangadharan, submitted that as per Rule 7 Chapter III KER, it does not contemplate any such procedure to recover a certain amount from the Manager as is done in this case. Similarly, the counsel for the 2nd respondent, Sri. V.A. Muhammed, also contended that the Headmistress is in no way responsible for the alleged loss. No procedure was adopted by initiating recovery steps against the 1st respondent. 13. We have heard Miss. Nisha Bose, learned Senior Government Pleader for the appellants, Sri. U. Balagangadharan learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri. V.A. Muhammed learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 14. The education is a policy matter of the Government. Earlier it was part of the State List. After the 42nd Amendment, it is part of the Concurrent List. The education policy of the State is in tune to ensure that each student’s constitutional right to education is met. The State achieves this objective by establishing statewide standards for accountability, adopting regulations, and providing guidance. For that purpose, it establishes Education Districts, Sub Divisions and schools. In this regard, schools are established in the Government Sector as well as in the aided sector. In the aided sector, though the schools are established by private individuals or corporate management, the appointments of teachers are made by such managers. However, the remuneration is made from the consolidated fund of the Government. In the case of aided schools, the management or the managers are the responsible bodies to conduct the administration of the institution. For that purpose, public fund is utilized under two heads; i.e. from consolidated funds and corpus funds. For payment of salary, the consolidated fund is utilised, whereas, for infrastructure/development of infrastructure, corpus fund is utilized. In the case of aided schools, the management or the managers are the responsible bodies to conduct the administration of the institution. For that purpose, public fund is utilized under two heads; i.e. from consolidated funds and corpus funds. For payment of salary, the consolidated fund is utilised, whereas, for infrastructure/development of infrastructure, corpus fund is utilized. Thereby, schools and their management are a part of public trust. The manager of an aided school plays a pivotal role. They are entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing the school’s operations, ensuring compliance with educational regulations, and maintaining financial integrity. Any irregularity committed by the manager can have serious consequences, both for the manager and the school itself. It is crucial for the manager to be aware of their obligation under the Kerala State Education Act and Rules and to adhere to these provisions to avoid legal liabilities. 15. On evaluating the arguments on both sides and perusing the records, it appears that, as per Section 7 of the Kerala Education Act, the Manager is a Trustee. He is responsible for the conduct of the school in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules thereunder. He is responsible and duty-bound to maintain the records and accounts of the School in such a manner as prescribed. Therefore, for any deviation or violation of provisions while administering the affairs of the school, the Manager is responsible. Similarly, Rule 7 Chapter III is not exhaustive. Especially sub-rule 4 of Rule 7 permits the recovery of monetary loss caused to the Teachers/Government by committing irregularity by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force as if it is an arrear of public revenue due on the land. Sub Clause (d) of sub-rule 4 of Rule 7 further provides that the Manager is held responsible for making irregular appointments and getting them approved by the Education Authority concerned by making false information. It is apposite to extract Rule 7(4) and 7(4)(d) for easy reference: “7. Sub Clause (d) of sub-rule 4 of Rule 7 further provides that the Manager is held responsible for making irregular appointments and getting them approved by the Education Authority concerned by making false information. It is apposite to extract Rule 7(4) and 7(4)(d) for easy reference: “7. Action against Manager or Educational Agency in the event of mismanagement: xxx xxx xxx (4) In the case of a Manager who commits serious irregularities causing monetary loss to teachers/Government, the loss sustained by teachers/Government shall be recoverable from the Manager under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force as if it is an arrear of public revenue due on land, in the following cases namely- xxx xxx xxx (d) Making of irregular appointments and getting them approved by the Educational Officers concerned by furnishing false information declaration by the managers regarding the claimants, under rule 51A Chapter XIVA.” 16. On accepting the contentions raised by the appellants that the 1st respondent has committed irregularity as contemplated under Rule 7(4) Chapter III KER. As per Rule 7 the Manager is a Trustee who has some bounden duty to conduct the school in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules. In violation of that, the 1st respondent Manager caused to sanction 8 excess posts by causing bogus admissions. Without the knowledge of the Manager, posts cannot be created, and the Manager is duty-bound to maintain the records. Thereby, the Manager cannot be absolved from the responsibility of bogus admissions. 17. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that in the report submitted through the proceedings of the Director of Public Instruction, Kerala as per Ext.P3, in paragraph 3, it is held, the Headmaster is responsible for admission maintenance of records and supervision of work of subordinates, the very action from the part of the Headmaster to adopt malpractice and irregularities for obtaining/retaining divisions for 2004-05 is of serious nature which could even attract disciplinary proceedings. It further found that it is the duty of a one-day strength verification officer to verify the correctness of the strength. It is also the duty of the Educational Officer to unearth the irregularities in the school. It further found that it is the duty of a one-day strength verification officer to verify the correctness of the strength. It is also the duty of the Educational Officer to unearth the irregularities in the school. It is due to the irregular fixation of the staff the state Exchequer has incurred additional and unnecessary expenditure by way of pay and allowances for 9 teachers, and an attempt is made only to fix the liability and responsibility on the Headmaster alone. In this case, it has already been interdicted by this Court in earlier proceedings and held Headmaster is not responsible in this case. Then as a measure to render the educational authorities safe, who are involved in it, straight away the liability is fixed on the Manager alone. This was in oblivion of the responsibility of the Assistant Educational Officer concerned who fixed the staff strength for the academic year 2004-05 in exercise of powers conferred upon him under the Kerala Education Act and Kerala Education Rules, 1959. It appears that such exercise is laboured only to protect the interest of the responsible person of the Educational Authorities who cannot be left scot-free. 18. While initiating the recovery from the Manager, the Educational Authority should have borne in mind the aforementioned factors. However, the recovery can be initiated after adopting due procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and principles of natural justice. Though no specific adjudication is contemplated under the provisions of Rule 7, Chapter III KER, the principles of natural justice demand that the Manager must know specific charges against him, and he must be given a fair opportunity to contradict them. That means allegations and materials relied on must be communicated to him. Hence, the appellants are free to proceed against the 1st respondent on recourse to due procedures established by law as aforementioned. It is also to be considered the responsibility of the Assistant Educational Officer concerned who had fixed the staff strength as per Ext.P1. 19. On these observations, the impugned judgment is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed.