Back
2008 Supreme(Ker) 91
Judgename : K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,P.N.RAVINDRAN
Manager, S.N.G.S.High School - Appellant
Versus
Reji Sagar D.R., Peon, S.N.G.S - Respondents
Case No : WA No.98 of 2008
Decided On : 02/07/2008
Headnote:
Education Rules 1959 (Kerala), Chapter XIV (A) R. 9A & XIV (A) R. 51B - Appeal arises for decision in these is sustainability of claim for appointment of dependent of a non-teaching staff who died in harness in an aided school as a Teacher were disposed of by Judge by a common judgment - Manage has filed challenging judgments in those Writ Petitions. by an affected teacher - Respondent is petitioner father was a Peon in school managed by appellant - Employee died at relevant time respondent was a minor aged claim of said respondent for appointment dying-in-harness scheme is subject-matter of this appeal - Respondent's mother soon after death of her husband submitted an application for employment under the dying-in-harness scheme toe Deputy Director - Petitioner passed examination in he attained majority cleared Sanskrit Teachers Examination held petitioner soon thereafter moved Manager and Deputy Director of Education for employment under dying-in-harness scheme counter affidavit was filed by appellant herein on behalf of himself and respondent affidavit it was submitted by Manager that a vacancy in post of Clerk arose - But petitioner did not apply for said post - Held, Court cited counsel for appellant have no application decision in only lays down principle that claim of applicant for appointment dying-in-harness scheme has to be considered in accordance with regulations framed by - It was held that no benevolence can be shown de hors provisions of law - Principles laid down in that case have no application to case - Decision for reasons explained above will not apply to appointments in aided schools under dying-in-harness scheme said decision deals with appointment to public services -Court concerning appointment to public services under dying-in-harness scheme like grant of appointment immediately after death of breadwinner to bring immediate succor to family etc are not applicable and unworkable as far as aided schools are concerned petitioner was appointed to post of Peon to which respondent has staked his claim appointment of petitioner to post of Peon is not approved also - Having regard to case have no doubt in our mind that petitioner was rightful claimant for appointment to post of Lower Grade Sanskrit Teacher appointment of a candidate from open market in vacancy of a Lower Grade Sanskrit Teacher long after receipt of application from petitioner for same, is plainly untenable - Manager can make appointment from open market if only there is no claimant Judge has rightly interfere agree with reasons and conclusions of Judge - No ground has been made out warranting interference with judgment under appeal fails and dismissed - Appeal dismissed
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The point that arises for decision in these appeals is the sustainability of the claim for appointment of the dependent of a non-teaching staff, who died in harness, in an aided school as a Teacher. W.P.
(C) Nos.16399 & 10200/2007 were disposed of by the learned single Judge by a common judgment dated 10.12.2007. The Manager, S.N.G.S.H.S., Kadakkodu has filed W.A.Nos.98 & 138/2008, challenging the judgments in those writ petitions. W.A.No.149/2008 is filed by an affected teacher, challenging the judgment in W.P.(C) No.16399/2007. These three appeals are heard and disposed of together by this common judgment.
2. The above Writ Appeal filed by the Manager against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.16399/2007 is treated as the main case. The brief facts of the case are the following: The 1st respondent is the writ petitioner. His father was a Peon in the school managed by the appellant. The said employee died on 110.2000. At the relevant time, the 1st respondent was a minor, aged 16. The claim of the said respondent for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme is the subject-matter of this appeal. The 1st respondents mother, soon after the death of her husband, submitted an application for employment under the dying-in-harness scheme to the Deputy Director. The said officer by Ext.P5 communication, informed her that the writ petitioner can apply for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme, as and when he attains majority and thereupon, his application will be considered by the Manager in accordance with law. The writ petitioner passed the S.S.L.C examination in March, 1999 and he attained majority on 24.2002. He cleared the Sanskrit Teachers Examination held in April, 2003. The writ petitioner soon thereafter, moved the Manager and the Deputy Director of Education for employment under the dying-in-harness scheme. His application was forwarded by the Deputy Director to the Manager, by Ext.P6 communication dated 211.2003, directing to consider his claim for appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A, K.E.R. Thereafter, the writ petitioner submitted an application for appointment in the prescribed form to the Manager on 7.2.2005, a copy of which was produced as Ext.P7 in the writ petition. The post claimed by him in Ext.P7 was Lower Grade Sanskrit Teacher. The Manager by Ext.P8 communication dated 13.2005 informed the writ petitioner that since his father was working as a Peon, he is entitled to be considered for appointment only to the category of non-teaching staff under Rule 9A of Chapter XXIV A, K.E.R. It was also informed that a vacancy of Clerk arose in the school on 10.2002, but he failed to apply for the same, though he attained majority on 24.2002. The writ petitioner was also told that his claim for appointment under the compassionate employment scheme will be considered in the next arising vacancy of non-teaching staff in the school. Aggrieved by Ext.P8, the writ petitioner preferred Ext.P9 representation before the District Educational Officer, Kottarakkara, claiming appointment in the vacancy of Lower Grade Sanskrit Teacher, which arose with effect from 6.2005. On receipt of the said representation, the D.E.O forwarded the same to the Manager along with Ext.P10 covering letter dated 16.1.2006, directing him to consider the writ petitioners claim for appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A of the K.E.R. But, ignoring his claim, the Manager appointed the 4th respondent as Junior Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 8.2006, by Ext.P11 order. The writ petitioner, aggrieved by Ext.P11, filed W.P.(C) No.21053/2006, challenging the said order. During the pendency of the case, a vacancy of Peon arose in the school and the Manager appointed the writ petitioner in that vacancy. So, W.P.(C) No.21053/2006 was disposed of, giving liberty to the writ petitioner to ventilate his grievance, if he is aggrieved by his appointment as Peon. Though, the petitioner was appointed as Peon, neither his appo
