applied in the case of protected teachers. On the factual aspects it was found that, the appellant had not permitted the 4th respondent, who is a protected teacher, to join in the parent school in the vacancy which arose, on the basis of her claim under Rule 51A and the engagement of a fresh hand on daily wage basis, against the directions contained in Ext.P2 order, is not an action which can be legally sustained. With respect to Ext.P11 order it was found that, the contention of the appellant that the Manager is bound to obey only lawful orders of the educational authorities, cannot be accepted, especially in view of the fact that the appellant had neither challenged Ext.P2 order nor permitted the 4th respondent to rejoin duty in the school. Therefore it was found that the contention raised by the appellant that he has not disobeyed any lawful orders or directions issued by the educational authorities cannot be sustained. Hence, the contention in the reply submitted by the appellant, that no proceedings under Rule 7 of Chapter III of the Kerala Educational Rules is warranted against him, was not accepted. The learned Single Judge also held that the reasoning mentioned by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P11 order cannot in any manner be said as perverse or illegal, warranting interference in
