The issue of law that arises for decision in these writ petitions is as to whether a dependent of a non-teaching employee governed by Chapter XXIV B of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, hereinafter referred to as “KER”. For short, is entitled to employment on compassionate grounds on demise, in harness of that employee.

The facts:

2. Sri. A. Ramakrishnan, entered service as a part-time menial in the K.V. Sanskrit Higher Secondary school, Muthukulam on 8-6-1996. He died on 4-3-1995 in harness. His son, Sri. Rajesh, the petitioner in O.P.No.18342 of 2001, born on 20-5-1982, was not a major at that time. On attaining majority, he promptly applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. The District Educational Officer hereinafter referred to as the “DEO”, for short, rejected it on the ground that the dependants of part-time menials are not entitled to compassionate employment in terms of the Government Orders. Sri. Rajesh moved this court for a direction to the Government to consider his petition, which was then pending. By the decision contained in the letter dated 9-1-2001, the Government took the view that he is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. By letter dated 3-5-2001, the Government rejected again the Manager’s request to revise the decision and directed to appoint Sri. Rajesh, as a Lower Division Clerk. However, the Manager did not appoint Sri. Rajesh. He, therefore, filed O.P.No.18342 of 2001 on 20-06-2001 seeking a direction to the Manager to comply with the orders of the Government. Service of notice in that writ petition, going by the endorsements; appear to have been completed, in so far as the second respondent Manager is concerned, in 2001 itself.

3. Without obeying the directions of the Government and during the pendency of O.P.No.18342 of 2001, of which he had notice, the Manager appointed one Sri. Sreekumar, the sixth respondent in W.P. (C) No.32375 of 2005, as a full time menial from 10-1-2005 and moved the statutory authorities for approval of that appointment. The DEO rejected the approval on the ground that Sri. Rajesh was yet to be appointed. The Deputy Director affirmed that decision on 4-5-2005.

4. Thereafter, on 14-1-2005, the Deputy Director invoked Rule 7 (1) of Chapter III of KER and proceeded against the Manager to take action on account of mismanagement and disobedience of departmental instructions and denial of appointment, in spite of the specific directions by the Government.

5. Faced with that situation, W.P.(C) No.32375 of 2005 was filed by the Manager on 18-11-2005, that is, more than four and a half years after the direction of the Government to appoint Sri. Rajesh and four Years of the uncontested pendency of O.P.No.18342 of 2001 before this Court. In that writ petition, the Manager challenges the Government directive and the consequential decisions, including the action notified against him under Rule 7 (1) of Chapter III KER. He also seeks a declaration that Chapter XXIV B KER does not contain any provision enabling the issuance of the direction to appoint Sri. Rajesh.

Arguments:

6. The learned counsel for Sri. Rajesh argued that the decision of the Government commanding the Manger to appoint Sri. Rajesh on compassionate grounds became final on 3-5-2001, the finality of which was not challenged by the Manager at any point of time until the institution of W.P. (C) No.32375 of 2005 on 18-11-2005 and that therefore, the Manager may not be permitted to agitate that issue. It is further pointed out that Chapter XXIV B does not contain any provision, which disentitles the dependent of a non-teaching staff dying in harness from being appointed in terms of Rule 9 A of Chapter XXIV A.

7. Learned counsel for the Manager argued that Chapter XXIV A and Chapter XXIV B of KER, having regard to the relevant legal history, have to be treated as distinct sets of Rules and there is no provision in Chapter XXIV B, which provides for compassionate appointment similar to Rule 9A in Chapt