JUDGMENT : P.M. MANOJ, J. The captioned writ petition is preferred by the Manager of Kadambur Higher Secondary School, Kannur. The grievance voiced in the petition concerns the issuance of the Ext.P27 show-cause notice to Sri.Reghuraj M.K., HSST (Chemistry), who was then holding the charge of Principal. The notice was issued on the allegation that he had prevented another incumbent from taking charge as the Chief Superintendent of the SAY (Save A Year) examination conducted in June 2018. The petitioner contends that the issuance of a show-cause notice directly to the teacher by the Director of Higher Secondary Education violates the provisions of Section 12A of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 . 2. It is the petitioner's case that the school has a 125-year history, having been established in 1899 as an elementary school. Through periodic upgrades, it reached the status of a Higher Secondary School in the year 2000. 3. The issues relating to the school began in 2006, when Sri.C. Manikantan, the Principal-in-charge, was suspended from service on 26.08.2017, following allegations of misappropriation and dereliction of duty, including the unlawful disbursement of salaries to teachers. Although no formal inquiry was initially conducted pursuant to the suspension, the respondent reviewed the suspension orders in an apparent attempt to shield the employee from liability. 4. This review was challenged in WP(C) No. 7208 of 2018. Subsequently, the Manager challenged the judgment in that writ petition by filing WA No. 661/2019, which was allowed, thereby permitted the petitioner to finalize the disciplinary proceedings. 5. During Sri.Manikantan’s suspension, Mrs.Mumtaz A.P. was appointed by the 2 nd respondent as principal-in-charge, as a stopgap arrangement to discharge the day-to-day duties of the Principal, as evidenced by Ext.P1. Later, via the Ext.P2 order, a show-cause notice was issued to Mrs.Mumtaz on findings of dereliction of duty and disobedience. The charges includes: Unauthorized absence; Failure to credit teachers' salaries; Non-adherence to prescribed work timings; and Consistent unavailability. Furthermore, numerous complaints regarding these issues were received from the Parent-Teachers’ Association (PTA). 6. Consequently, Smt. Mumtaz resigned from her position as Principal-in-charge on 17.05.2018, stating that she was unable to continue in the post. In light of this vacancy, a PTA meeting held on 24.05.2018, recommended vesting the charge of Principal in Sri.Reghuraj M.K. in the best interest of the school. 6. Consequently, Smt. Mumtaz resigned from her position as Principal-in-charge on 17.05.2018, stating that she was unable to continue in the post. In light of this vacancy, a PTA meeting held on 24.05.2018, recommended vesting the charge of Principal in Sri.Reghuraj M.K. in the best interest of the school. Acting upon this recommendation, the petitioner appointed Sri.Reghuraj as Principal-in-charge effective from 25.05.2018, for the limited purpose of discharging administrative duties. Accordingly, all relevant administrative documents were handed over to Sri.Reghuraj by Smt.Mumtaz. 7. The appointment order was forwarded to the 2 nd respondent on 28.05.2018, via Ext.P7, seeking approval for the appointment of Sri.Reghuraj as Principal-in-charge and ratification of the petitioner’s decision to accept the resignation of Smt. Mumtaz. However, this request was not acted upon in a timely manner. 8. As it was the start of the new academic session, it was essential to hand over the charge of Principal to a competent person to manage online admissions for Class XI. Furthermore, as the school was a designated centre for the SAY Improvement Examination in June 2018, it was critical to have a Principal in place to serve as the Chief Superintendent of Examinations. According to Departmental stipulations, the Principal of the school must serve as the Chief Superintendent. Consequently, Sri.Reghuraj, being the Principal-in-charge, was required to hold the post of Chief Superintendent for the examinations scheduled to commence on 13.06.2018. 9. In this regard, an inspection was conducted by an Inspector delegated from the office of the Regional Deputy Director (RDD), who recorded his satisfaction regarding the arrangements in the visitors' book. Accordingly, on 01.06.2018, the then Principal-in- charge, Sri.Reghuraj, collected the question papers for the examinations. However, despite submission of the application, the appointment of Sri.Reghuraj as Principal was not approved. Since the Principal was required to act as the Chief Superintendent, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 18279 of 2018. By judgment dated 08.06.2018, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and pass orders within one month. 10. Subsequently, the 2 nd respondent requested the seniority list of teachers and scheduled a hearing on 25.06.2018, in compliance with the aforementioned judgment. By judgment dated 08.06.2018, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and pass orders within one month. 10. Subsequently, the 2 nd respondent requested the seniority list of teachers and scheduled a hearing on 25.06.2018, in compliance with the aforementioned judgment. Since the appointment of Sri.Reghuraj remained unapproved while the examinations were fast approaching, he sent an email to the Joint Director requesting that measures be taken to formally appoint him as the Chief Superintendent, as evidenced by Ext.P22. 11. Instead of approving the appointment, the Secretary of the Board of Higher Secondary Examinations, acting on the recommendation of the RDD, Kannur, purportedly relieved Sri.Reghuraj of his duties as Principal-in-charge and appointed one Sri K.P. Shaju as the Chief Superintendent. The petitioner contends that this decision was based on misinformation, as Sri K.P. Shaju was neither a duly authorised Principal nor Principal-in-charge. On 18.06.2018, the petitioner replied to the Secretary, clarifying that the RDD had provided incorrect information by stating that Sri.Reghuraj had been relieved; in reality, Sri.Reghuraj had never expressed a desire to be relieved from his duties. 12. It is further submitted that Sri M.K.Reghuraj received an email communication on 12.06.2018 confirming his appointment as Principal-in-charge and permitting him to act as the Chief Superintendent for the 2018 SAY Examinations. Subsequently, a hearing was conducted in compliance with the directions in Ext.P13 judgment, but the petitioner alleges that the same was conducted with vested interests. Consequently, a reply was preferred via Ext.P17 on 25.06.2018. Although the reply was submitted on that date, it was officially endorsed as received only on 26.06.2018. In this regard, both the PTA and the incumbent Principal submitted separate representations, as evidenced by Exts.P18 and P19. 13. However, by Ext.P20 order, the application for approval was rejected, purportedly relying on G.O.(MS) No. 122/2002/G.Edn. stated that the charge of Principal must be given to the senior-most HSST and that the Manager had failed to provide a seniority list. The petitioner contends that this G.O. was non- existent or, at the very least, had been kept in abeyance at the time the order was passed. Furthermore, the order ignored the fact that Sri.Reghuraj was otherwise fully qualified to be a regular Principal and failed to address the representations made in Exts.P18 and P19. 14. The petitioner contends that this G.O. was non- existent or, at the very least, had been kept in abeyance at the time the order was passed. Furthermore, the order ignored the fact that Sri.Reghuraj was otherwise fully qualified to be a regular Principal and failed to address the representations made in Exts.P18 and P19. 14. Ext.P20 order was challenged in WP(C) No. 22138 of 2018, where an interim order was secured, enabling Sri.Reghuraj to perform his duties pending the disposal of the writ petition. Upon final disposal, an appeal was preferred against certain directions therein. The appeal was allowed, with a direction to the petitioner to appoint the senior-most HSST. 15. Subsequently, Ext.P26 order clarified that the Principal or Principal-in-charge shall serve as the Chief Superintendent. Notably, this clarification was issued only after Sri Shaju—who was never appointed as Principal-in-charge—had already been appointed as the Chief Superintendent in place of Sri.Reghuraj. Despite these facts, Ext.P27 show-cause notice was issued on 17.09.2018. The petitioner challenges this notice as violative of Section 12A of the Kerala Education Act. 16. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contends that, Clause 17 of Chapter VIII of the Higher Secondary Examination Manual pertains to negligence or dereliction of duties by teachers of Government and Aided Higher Secondary Schools. Furthermore, Clause 18 prescribes the penalties for such misconduct. Under the said Manual, the Director of Higher Secondary Education is empowered to take disciplinary action for punishments under 1 and 2 prescribed under Clause 18 and 3 to 7 by the Government. 17. Based on the counter-affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent, it is argued that the proceedings to appoint Sri.Shaju were initiated upon the recommendation of the RDD based on a report that no approved Chief Superintendent was available at Kadambur Higher Secondary School. It is further contended that, pursuant to Clause 10 of Chapter II of the Manual, the Principal of a Government or Aided school serves as the Superintendent and is appointed by the Secretary of the Kerala Board of Higher Secondary Examinations. The Secretary is authorised to appoint a substitute if necessary to ensure the smooth conduct of the examination. 18. It is further contended that, pursuant to Clause 10 of Chapter II of the Manual, the Principal of a Government or Aided school serves as the Superintendent and is appointed by the Secretary of the Kerala Board of Higher Secondary Examinations. The Secretary is authorised to appoint a substitute if necessary to ensure the smooth conduct of the examination. 18. The respondents further clarify that Ext.P26 order, which provides guidelines for officials performing duties as Chief or Deputy Superintendents, relates specifically to the First Year Improvement/Supplementary Examination of July–August 2018, and is not applicable to the SAY Examination of June 2018. It is alleged that Sri.Reghuraj, the official in question, assumed the charge of Chief Superintendent for a critical public examination while completely disregarding the directions issued by the Secretary to the designated office. Under these circumstances, Ext.P27 show- cause notice was issued to Sri.Reghuraj seeking clarification for his alleged insubordination and misconduct. 19. The learned Government Pleader further contends that the show-cause notice was issued specifically to the teacher, who failed to submit a reply. Instead, the Manager has assumed the responsibility of challenging the notice, a course of action which the Government argues is legally unsustainable. 20. To enhance the efficiency of the Higher Secondary Examination (HSE) system and to ensure a uniform policy for all examination-related issues, a comprehensive Examination Manual, containing guidelines and procedures for Principals, teachers, and students, was introduced vide G.O.(P) No. 307/05/G.Edn. dated 09.08.2005. 21. As previously stated, Clause 18 of Chapter VIII of this Manual clearly stipulates that the power to impose punishments is vested in the Director and the Government. It is argued that the proceedings were initiated in strict conformity with these provisions for the purpose of imposing a penalty, and the impugned show- cause notice was issued as a necessary step in that disciplinary process. 22. I have heard Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Smt.Nisha George appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Mary Beena Jopseph, learned Senior Govt. Pleader for the respondents. 23. The primary issue to be decided in this case is whether the Examination Manual, issued by the Government as contended in the 1 st respondent's counter-affidavit, can have an overriding effect on the provisions of the Kerala Education (KE) Act. Pleader for the respondents. 23. The primary issue to be decided in this case is whether the Examination Manual, issued by the Government as contended in the 1 st respondent's counter-affidavit, can have an overriding effect on the provisions of the Kerala Education (KE) Act. This is particularly relevant as Section 12A of the Act specifically contemplates and defines the disciplinary powers of the Government over teachers in aided schools. However, the said power is restricted by the proviso to Section 12A , which says: “ 12A. [ Disciplinary powers of Government over teachers of aided schools. Xx xx xx xx xx Provided that:- (a)before exercising the powers under sub-section (1) the Government or [the authorised officer] as the case may be, may intimate the Manager regarding the circumstances requiring disciplinary action against the teacher concerned and give the Manager a reasonable opportunity of taking disciplinary action; and (b)if the Manager fails to take appropriate action it shall be open to the Government or the authorised officer to take appropriate disciplinary action against the teacher concerned.” 24. The issue at hand is no longer res integra, as this Court has previously considered the matter and held in categorical terms that disciplinary action under Section 12A can be invoked by the Government or a vested authority only under specific conditions. Primarily, the Manager must first be informed of the alleged indiscipline and given a reasonable period to take action. Only if the Manager fails to act within such time, the powers under Section 12A can be invoked. 25. From the impugned order and the contentions raised before this Court, it is not discernible that any such procedure, as mandated by the Kerala Education Act, was adopted by the disciplinary authority acting under the Higher Secondary Examination Manual. 26. In the absence of compliance with the statutory provisions of the Kerala Education Act, the disciplinary action initiated by the 1 st respondent through the issuance of the show-cause notice must be treated as a violation of Section 12A . Any powers conferred upon the Government or its subordinate authorities by an administrative manual shall be void to the extent they are inconsistent with the parent Act. 27. This position is well-settled in Dr. P.T. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala [2024 SCC OnLine Ker 7615] and Abdul Jabbar T. v. Director of Public Instruction [2011 SCC OnLine Ker 3987]. Any powers conferred upon the Government or its subordinate authorities by an administrative manual shall be void to the extent they are inconsistent with the parent Act. 27. This position is well-settled in Dr. P.T. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala [2024 SCC OnLine Ker 7615] and Abdul Jabbar T. v. Director of Public Instruction [2011 SCC OnLine Ker 3987]. Consequently, the Ext.P27 show-cause notice cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.