K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. Myriad facts and dates arise in the above writ petitions, which essentially raise a claim for compassionate appointment under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 [for brevity "KER"].

2. The parties, facts and documents are referred from W.P.(C). No. 10813 of 2015, wherein the petitioner is the claimant under Rule 51B and additional 4th respondent, the rival claimant under Rule 51A. Rule 51B claimant has filed the above writ petition seeking to enforce Exhibits P14 and P15 orders, while the rival claimant challenges the said orders in W.P.(C). No. 14797 of 2015.

3. I have heard Sri. C.P. Sudhakara Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the Rule 51B claimant, Sri. K.K. Mohamed Ravuf for the Manager [3rd respondent] and Sri. P.M. Pareeth for the Rule 51A claimant as also the learned Government Pleader.

4. The petitioner's mother was working as a High School Assistant [for brevity "HSA"], Malayalam in the aided school under the management of the 3rd respondent when she passed away on 24.10.1994. The petitioner admittedly was a minor at that point of time. On attaining majority in the year 1998, the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment under Rule 51B. The said application was for the post of a Lower Division Clerk. No vacancy arose in the school and the petitioner could not be accommodated thereat.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner having completed her higher studies, applied on 29.08.2003, again for compassionate appointment; but to the post of HSA [Social Science], since she had by then acquired the required qualification. The Manager then informed the petitioner, by Exhibit P3, that there was no vacancy of HSA [Social Science] in the Corporate Management and, hence, her request for appointment as HSA [Social Science] would be considered as and when a vacancy arises.

6. The petitioner subsequently is said to have been appointed in a leave vacancy between 01.07.2005 and 30.06.2010, the approval of which was rejected by Exhibit P4. The reason for rejection was that though one HSA [Social Science] had proceeded on leave, there were in existence two excess hands in HSA [Social Science] who had to be accommodated in the vacancy of HSA [English] to avoid their retrenchment. Despite one teacher having gone on leave, there were in existence five HSA [Social Science] against four sanctioned posts. The petitioner's approval was rejected by Exhibit P4 and the same is said to be pending consideration in a revision; the petitioner having failed before the lower authorities. The same is not a subject matter of the above writ petition.

7. Subsequently, a leave vacancy arose on 01.06.2007, which extended upto 12.06.2012. Despite the petitioner being entitled under Rule 51B, the contention raised is that, the petitioner was not granted appointment. Two persons for different periods are said to have been appointed; both of whom failed to get approval of their appointments. This is also alleged to be for reason of the Manager having not appointed the Rule 51B claimant. Again a vacancy arose on 11.05.2009. The Manager communicated the same to the petitioner and directed the petitioner to join before 01.06.2009, as is evidenced at Exhibit P10. The petitioner submits that the petitioner did not receive Exhibit P10 communication, which was a registered letter, since she was out of India during that time. To the said vacancy, the additional 4th respondent was appointed and continued till 2007, which gave rise to the Rule 51A claim of the additional 4th respondent. Subsequently when one vacancy arose, the petitioner approached the authorities under the KER, who has issued Exhibits P14 and P15 directing the appointment to be made. The additional 4th respondent too staked a claim to that post under Rule 51A.

8. The additional 4th respondent challenges Exhibits P14 and P15, in the other writ petition, on the ground that the claim under Rule 51A acquired by her, by reason of the failure of t