Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The petitioner was appointed as a Cook in a leave vacancy in the 4th respondent’s school on 10.7.2003. It is a special school meant for visually challenged children. On termination of the vacancy, he was relieved from service on 30.11.2003. The said appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer (D.E.O.). The petitioner submits that, thus he became a rule 51A claimant for future vacancices that may arise in the said school.

2. Later, a vacancy arose in the post of Scavenger on 7.2005. The petitioner was not appointed in that vacancy. Still later, another vacancy arose in the post of Cook on 6.2006. Even then, he was not considered for appointment. Claiming the vacancy in the post of Scavenger, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 representation before the Manager on 19.2005. It was followed by Ext.P3 representation dated 10.2005 filed, before the D.E.O. Since the said officer did not take any action, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 representation dated 17.5.2006 before the Director of Public Instruction. Since those representations were not considered, he filed Ext.P5 representation dated 20.7.2006 before the Government. But, the Government also did not take any effective action.

3. The vacancy in the post of Scavenger was filled up by appointing the 5th respondent and the vacancy in the post of Cook was filled up by appointing the 6th respondent. When he was not considered even for appointment to the post of Cook, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 representation before the Manager, followed by Ext.P7 representation dated 18.6.2007 before the third respondent, D.E.O.

4. Finally, the petitioner moved the Assistant Public Information Officer attached to the office of the D.E.O. under the Right to Information Act and pursuant to that the said officer issued Ext.P8 communication to him, pointing out that he was not appointed in the post of Scavenger because of the relinquishment letter given by him on 112.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the appointments of respondents 5 and 6 and also the refusal of the Educational Authorities to interfere with the same, this writ petition was filed, seeking the following reliefs:

i) call for the records leading to the appointment of 5th respondent and 6th respondent by 4th respondent and subsequent action taken by the 3rd respondent and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the same.

ii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed in the vacancy which arose on 7.2005 in which post the 5th respondent was appointed and alternatively in the post in which R6 was appointed.

iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to appoint the petitioner in the vacancy which arose on 7.2005 and the 3rd respondent to approve the same”.

5. The4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is submitted that the petitioner has given Ext.R4(A) relinquishment letter dated 112.2005, relinquishing his claim for appointment as Scavenger. It was executed in the presence of the D.E.O. and other witnesses. Pursuant to that, the 5th respondent was appointed as Scavenger and the said appointment was approved also. There was yet another reason for not considering the petitioner for the said post. The vacancy arose in the Girls Hostel. The rooms, where the blind girls are residing, are to be cleaned and the children have to be led to the toilet and therefore a male scavenger cannot be appointed. In view of the relinquishment letter, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the post of Cook also. So, the 6th respondent was appointed in the vacancy of Cook, which was available from 6.2006 to 8.3.2008. The said appointment was approved by the D.E.O as evidenced by Ext.R4(c). Therefore, the 4th respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. The6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 5 and 6. They supported the stand of the Manager. According to them, in view of the relinquishment letter given by the petitioner, he has no righ