The main legal point established in the judgment is that the procedure contained in Note 2 to Rule 51A is mandatory, and there cannot be forfeiture of a right accrued under R.51A in any manner otherwise than by the procedure provided by Note 2. R.51A and Note 2 thereunder are based upon public policy and intended to prevent malpractices.

Jagannadha Rao, C J.

These two appeals raise the same question, and can be disposed of together,

2. W.A.No.233 of 1992 is an appeal preferred by respondents 4 and 5 in the Writ Petition against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No. 79 of 1991-H, which is since reported as P.V. Vijayalakshmikutty v. State of Kerala and ors. 1992(1) KLT SN11, P.9 =1992 (1) KLJ 56. The writ petitioner therein is the first respondent in the appeal. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 11-12-1991. The writ petitioner was originally appointed as a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in the Saraswathi Vilasam U.P. School, Kondazhy in a temporary vacancy for the period from 10-6-1980 to 11-8-1980. That appointment was duly approved by the Assistant Educational Officer concerned. She was again appointed in a leave vacancy from 5-9-1980 to 28-11-1980, which was also approved There after, when a vacancy arose in the same post between 10-1-1989 to 22-3-1989, the manager did not appoint anybody. In a subsequent temporary vacancy for the period from 3-7-1989 to 1-9-1989, the fifth' respondent in the writ petition (second appellant) was appointed. The petitioner contended that her claims under R.51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules were unjustly overlooked. She contended that no notice was given to her by the manager as contemplated by Note 2 to Rule 51A. She made a representation on 7-7-1989 to the manager as well as to the Assistant Educational Officer, and requested not to approve the appointment of the second appellant. When there was delay, she filed O.P.No.6454 of 1989, which was allowed on 14-8-1989 directing disposal of the representation. Thereafter, Ext.P2 order dated 19-8-1989 was passed by the Assistant Educational Officer rejecting the writ petitioner's claim, giving two reasons. It was firstly stated 'that the writ petitioner had given two letters of relinquishment relinquishing her claims under R.51A for further appointment in the school, and secondly that she was over-aged. The writ petitioner filed a revision before the Director of Public Instruction, and as per Ext.P4 dated 6-3-1990, it was held by the Director tint the letters of relinquishment had no legal effect so long as the procedure directed in note 2 to R.51A had not been followed by the manager. Therefore the revision of the writ petitioner was allowed, and the approval of the appointment of the second appellant was set aside, and the manager was directed to appoint the writ petitioner. Thereafter a permanent vacancy arose in the school on 31-3-1990, and the writ petitioner made a representation to the manager to appoint her. But she was informed that the matter was pending with the Government in a further revision. She .then submitted Ext. PS representation dated 10-8-1990 before the Government for a direction to the manager to appoint her in the permanent vacancy. The Government issued notice,Ext.P6, directing the writ petitioner to show cause why her claims should not be rejected on the ground that she had relinquished her claim under R.51 A. She submitted a reply as per Ext.P7 stating that the manager had not followed the procedure mentioned in Note 2 to Rule 51A in making appointment in the vacancy which arose on 3-7-1989. She also claimed that the so-called relinquishments were created on blank papers got signed by the management. But the Government took the view that that was a voluntary relinquishment of the claim, and passed Ext. PS order dated 3-12-1990 rejecting the petitioner's claim. The said order was questioned by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that so far as the age requirement was concerned, the same was not relevant in the case of appointment based on the claim under R.51 A, and for the said purpose the learned Single Judge relied on a decision of this Court in O.P.No.3949 of 1988, wherein, another learned Single judge of