also clear from Section 11 of the Act that the power of appointment conferred on the manager is subject to the rules and conditions laid down by the Government. Thus it clear that the duty of the manager under sub-rules (3) and (5) of Rule 9 of Chapter III of the KER is subject to the aforesaid provisions. Therefore, I reject the contentions of the Petitioners. Point No. 5: 30. Sri John Joseph Vettikkad, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4158 of 2010 submitted that the Petitioner therein has challenged the validity of Rule 14 of Chapter XXIII, KER. The counsel submitted that the validity of Rule 14 was not challenged in W.P.(C) No. 273 of 2007 and connected Writ Petitions. He submitted that if the power of the manager under Section 11 is to be taken away, it could be done only by amendment of the Act. It cannot be done by the Rules or by executive orders. It is also contended that Rule 14 of Chapter XXHI K.E.R. is contrary to power vested in the manager under Section 11 and therefore the rule is bad. The counsel also submitted that Rule 14 of Chapter XXIII also is against Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII and Rule 23 of Chapter VI, K.E.R.

- 31. In paragraph 28 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, is stated as follows:

It is also respectfully submitted that the challenges against the Rule 14 of Chapter 23 of KER is also totally unfounded. The Kerala Education Act and Rules contain a special pattern for division of responsibilities between the management and Government. The State has taken up responsibility of the payment of salaries to the teachers for the effective supervision and development of the Educational Institutions. The powers conferred on the managements of the institutions are also made subject to Government directions and orders. This is done for balancing the different interest of the persons running the institutions and the State paying their employees. In that exercise the Government is compelled to observe certain financial restraint. It was as part of such financial restraint that the Government had imposed the ban on public services. As held by this Hon'ble Court in W.R (C) No. 35543/07 the Government can exercise the power to decide which vacancies are to be filled up and which are not be filled up. Moreover, this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 273/07 had considered all these contentions against the introduction of ban and had rejected the same upholding the power of the Government. The above judgment has attained finality and as of now the power of the Government to ban appointment for a specific period is beyond any dispute. 32. Section 11 of the Act gives power to a manager to appoint teachers only "subject to the rules and conditions laid down by the Government". Rule 14 of Chapter XXIII is also such a rule as contemplated in Section 11. Therefore, Rule 14 of Chapter XXIII would certainly be within the Rule making power of the Government under Section 36 of the Act. The power of the Manager under Section 11 of the Act to appoint teachers is not an absolute or unbridled power. The Manager of an aided school cannot appoint a teacher as he likes, by infringing the Rules and conditions laid down by the Government. The power of appointment is regulated by "the rules and conditions" laid down by the Government. The expression "rules and conditions laid down by the Government" in Section 11 is attributable to appointment and not exclusively to the "qualifications", since in Section 11 specific mention is made to Section 10 while dealing with "qualifications". As regards "qualifications" of teachers as well, the Rules will apply, since