JUDGMENT
The petitioner is challenging the disciplinary proceedings finalised as per Ext.P7, whereby the service of the petitioner was terminated. According to the petitioner, Ext. P1 appeal was preferred before the Statutory Committee and by virtue of Ext.P2 judgment in W.P(C) 15155 of 2010, the same was caused to be considered. Subsequently, the matter was finalised by the Committee and it came to be rejected as per Ext.P7, which in turn is under challenge.
2. The writ petition has been filed raising many a ground as to the correctness of the actual facts and figures. But the crucial question to be considered is whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, when it is in respect of the disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner by the respondent Management, who is running the ‘unaided’ school. Similar issue has been considered by this Court in detail, with reference to the relevant provisions of law and binding judicial precedents, in Toji Joseph v. State of Kerala [2009 (2) KHC 900], whereby it has been held that the remedy of the aggrieved party can only be by way of other appropriate proceedings including by filing civil suit and not by way of invoking the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the said circumstance, this Court finds that this writ petition is not maintainable. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed, in terms of the judgment cited supra, without prejudice to the rights and liberties as above.