Back
2012 Supreme(Ker) 347
High Court of Kerala
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
V.E. Moyi Haji
Versus
State Of Kerala, Rep By Its Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others
WP(C).No. 30021 of 2011 (C)
Decided On : 21-05-2012
Act Referred
KERALA EDUCATION RULES : R.51(b), Ch.14
Headnote
Rule 51B - Appointment under compassionate scheme - [2007 (3) KLT Suppl.Pg.32, 2008 (1) KLT 1026, 2003 (3) KLT 240, W.A.No.2211/2008] - The court considered the statutory right of the claimant under Rule 51B and the obligation of the Manager to inform about the vacancy and direct the dependant to apply. The court held that the time limit prescribed in clause 19 is directory as far as aided schools are concerned. The court also emphasized that the Manager cannot take shelter behind the plea that the dependant did not apply in time if he has not offered the appointment. The court dismissed one writ petition and allowed another, directing the Manager to appoint the petitioner in the second petition and rearrange the appointments made.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two writ petitions filed by the Manager of an aided school and the claimant under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A Kerala Education Rules for appointment. The claimant sought implementation of an order directing the Manager to appoint her in terms of Rule 51B.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Manager failed to inform the claimant about the vacancy and did not request the dependant to submit an application. The court held that the time limit prescribed in clause 19 is directory as far as aided schools are concerned. The court directed the Manager to appoint the petitioner in the second petition and rearrange the appointments made.
Issues: The main issue was whether the claimant's application was belated and whether the Manager had fulfilled the obligation to inform about the vacancy and direct the dependant to apply.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the time limit prescribed in clause 19 is directory as far as aided schools are concerned. The Manager cannot take shelter behind the plea that the dependant did not apply in time if he has not offered the appointment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed one writ petition and allowed another, directing the Manager to appoint the petitioner in the second petition and rearrange the appointments made.
For the Petitioner:M.R. Anison, Mrs. K.P. Geethamani, Mrs. P.A. Rinusa, Mrs. Annie Jacob, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, Mrs. A. Lowsy, Government Pleader, V.A. Muhammed, K.E. Hamza, Advocates.
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
1. These writ petitions respectively are filed at the instance of the Manager of an aided school and the claimant under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A Kerala Education Rules for appointment. The Government by Ext.P11 order produced in W.P.(C).No.30021/2011 directed the Manager to appoint the claimant in terms of Rule 51B and she is seeking implementation of the said order in W.P.(C).No.32889/2011.
2. The question which emerges for consideration is whether the application filed by the claimant, namely, the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.32889/2011, who is the third respondent in W.P.(C).No.30021/2011, is belated. The Management has got a further case that the claimant at the time of the date of death of the parent was not having the qualification for appointment as Teacher and waited till the acquisition of B.Ed qualification and this circumstance also will have its own bearing in the matter.
3. I shall refer to the facts of the case as stated in W.P.(C). No.30021/2011. The Manager represents a Corporate Educational Agency under the name "Mukkom Muslim Orphanage Committee". They are having several educational institutions which are being conducted for the welfare of the inmates of the Orphanage. It is stated that there are 1350 inmates in the Orphanage which was started in the year 1956. It is mentioned in para.2 of the writ petition that the Orphanage was graded as the best one in India for the years 1983 and 2009 and one of the inmates successfully got through the Civil Services Examination for the year 2011. It is also stated that in the matter of appointment of staff top priority is being given to the inmates of the Orphanage and a list of such appointees is produced as Ext.P4. Ext.P5 is a list of appointees during the year 2010-11, out of which two have been appointed in the post of High School Assistants.
4. The third respondent's father was the Principal of M.A.M.T.T.I, Mukkom, who died on 8/1/2008 while in service. According to the Management, the financial position of the family is very sound. Ext.P6 is the copy of G.O.(P).No.12/99/P&ARD, dated 24/05/1999 which contains the guidelines for compassionate appointment which have been made applicable going by Rule 51B of K.E.R. Clause 19 therein stipulates two years time limit for preferring an application under dying-in-harness scheme in an aided school.
5. It is alleged that as on the date of death of the third respondent's father, she was only a graduate and the application was submitted on the acquisition of B.Ed on 30/04/2010 which was received by the Manager on 15/05/2010 by registered post. It is averred in para.9 that the application was rejected by the petitioner-Manager by proceedings dated 19/07/2010 (Ext.P7).
6. The present controversy arose from that stage. Ext.P8 is a communication by the District Educational Officer to the Management directing to appoint the third respondent. The Government later issued a letter as per Ext.P9 to the District Educational Officer to initiate action against the Manager for not implementing the direction by the District Educational Officer, contained as Ext.P8. The parties took up the matter before this Court in W.P.(C).No.1442/2011 filed by the Management and W.P.(C).No.30311/2010 filed by the claimant which were disposed of by Ext.P10 Judgment. Therein, the Government was directed to reconsider the matter after hearing the parties and to take a fresh decision.
7. In W.P.(C).No.32889/2011 filed by the claimant, it is averred that the application was submitted on 30/04/2010 along with all required documents produced as Exts.P1 to P1 (l) with a copy to the District Educational Officer, Thamarassery. It is also averred that overlooking the claim of the petitioner, the Manager appointed respondents 5 and 6 as High School Assistants (Social Studies) from 01/06/2010 onwards. The application submitted by the petitioner has not been rejected by the Manager but he has only sent a report to the District Educa
