The primary liability of paying salary to teachers of aided schools rested with the employer (aided school), and the State Government's liability was limited to the payment of salary as a statutory obligation. The claim for arrears of salary was interpreted as a claim for compensation for loss suffered due to wrongful conduct, and not as a claim for salary.

1. The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the State is liable to pay salary to a teacher whose preferential right for appointment under R.51A of Chap.14-A of the Kerala Education Rules is denied by the Manager of the aided school by appointing someone else in that vacancy and the said teacher drawing his salary from the Government.

2. We shall now briefly state the necessary facts. The first respondent was appointed by the 5th respondent. Manager. J.P.E. High School. Trichur which receives aid from the Government under the Kerala Education Act. 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the Rules made thereunder. as High School Assistant. For want of vacancy. the services of the first respondent stood terminated with effect from 15-7-1969. An additional post of High School Assistant was sanctioned for the said school with effect from 15-7-1977. The first respondent. by virtue of R.51A of Chap.14-A of the Rules had a preferential right for appointment to the newly sanctioned post. Bat the 5th respondent appointed Sent. U.K. Thankamma in the said vacancy of High School Assistant ignoring the preferential right of the first respondent. The first respondent. therefore approached the State Government for the redressal of her grievances. The State Government. after being satisfied that the appointment of Smt. U.K. Thankamma ignoring the claims of the first respondent is illegal. passed an order on 9-2-1979 as per Ext. P5. By the said order. the State Government held that the first respondent was entitled to be appointed as High School Assistant in preference to Smt. U.K. Thankamma with effect from 15-7-1977. Consequently. it was declared that the first respondent shall be deemed to have been appointed as High School Assistant in the 5th respondent's school from the date of sanctioning of the additional post of High School Assistant. viz.. 15-7-1977; but without the benefit of arrears of salary. The District Educational Officer. Trichur was directed to take necessary action to reappoint the first respondent. The request of the 5th respondent Manager to approve the appointment of Smt. U.K. Thankamma was also rejected. In obedience to the said order. the 5th respondent Manager appointed the first respondent by order dated 8-3-1979 on which date the first respondent also reported for duty. The said appointment of the first respondent was approved by the District Educational Officer by Ext. P6 dated 16-1-1980 with effect from 15-7-1977; bat without the benefit of arrears of salary till 7-3-1979. Thereupon. the first respondent made a representation on 12-2-1981 as per Ext. P7 to the Minister for Education. requesting him to review the earlier order Ext. P5 which denial the first respondent the arrears of salary for the period during which she was wrongly deprived by the 5th respondent Manager of her right to hold the post. The State Government by order Ext. P8 dated 6-8-1982 rejected the said representation holding that she is not entitled to be paid salary for the period from

15-7-1977 to 7-3-1979 as she had not performed duty as High School Assistant during that period.

3. It was in this background that the first respondent filed OP No. 8560 of 1982 for quashing the directions contained in Exts. P5. P6 and P8 in so far as they denied her arrears of salary for the period during which she was wrongly denied appointment to the post of High School Assistant by the 5th respondent Manager. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 16-6-1983 allowed the original petition and directed the State Government to pay tine remuneration due to the first respondent for the period from 15-7-1977 till the date of her joining duty on the basis of Ext. P5 order Being aggrieved by the said judgment. the State has preferred this appeal.

4. The Division Bench before whom this appeal came up for final hearing being satisfied that an important question of law of general importance has arisen. referred the appeal t