THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. These writ appeals are by the manager of an aided school. The contesting respondent is the appellant's niece who was a teacher in that school, having worked in that capacity in a leave vacancy from 07/10/1998 to 07/12/1998. At that point of time, it was the appellant's mother who was the manager of the school. That spell brought home to the teacher a claim referable to Rule 51-A of Chapter XIV-A of KER which gives preference as regards appointment to subsequent vacancies. Going by the materials on record by way of pleadings, including representations etc., it appears that the teacher got married and moved to Madhya Pradesh sometime in 1994-95 immediately after her spell of work against the leave vacancy. Thereafter, another leave vacancy arose on account of a teacher K.Sudharani availing maternity leave. The manager, on the premise that the teacher before us had relinquished her claim under Rule 51-A of Chapter XIV-A of KER, appointed yet another person against that vacancy. The teacher was not offered any other appointment as against any vacancies that arose thereafter.

2. We see that there were some earlier writ petitions. Ultimately, the matter was before the statutory authorities and the decision was given in favour of the teacher directing the manager to appoint her in a particular vacancy. The manager challenged it by filing a writ petition. The teacher filed a writ petition seeking enforcement of the decision of the statutory authority. Those writ petitions were taken up by the learned single Judge and in the course of consideration of those writ petitions, the statutory authorities were required to look into the matter after hearing both the parties, at the level of the Deputy Director of Education. The parties were heard and detailed report was placed before this Court. The learned single Judge, on the basis of the materials, accepted the report and confirmed the decision of the statutory authority in favour of the teacher. The manager was directed to comply with those directions. Hence, these writ appeals by the manager.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant, referring to the decision of the learned single Judge in Jaimy v. Dy. Director, 1993(2) KLT 275, argued that the quality of relinquishment under Rule 51-A would affect on a permanent basis, even if such relinquishment is in relation to the offer of appointment towards a temporary vacancy. Relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Krishnakumar v. Kunhiraman, 2011(2) KLT 457, it was argued that the relinquishment amounts to abandonment and extinguishment of right for ever.

4. The learned single Judge relied on the judgment in Saramma v. D.E.O., Kothamangalam, 1991(2) KLT 883 which was rendered holding, among other things, that any distinction as to whether the post was permanent or temporary may not be decisive. We may note here that Krishnakumar (supra) was decided without noticing Saramma (supra).

5. Having looked into the entire materials in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and having regard to the quality of findings of the learned single Judge based on the report of the Deputy Director of Education, we think that nuances as to any conflict of opinion or the manner in which Rule 51-A would apply to permanent vacancies, need not hold us back from having a deeper look on to the facts of the case, more particularly in the light of Note-2 occurring after Rule 51-A and which has been relied on by the Deputy Director of Education in his report. We see abundant substance in the stand taken by the Deputy Director of Education relying on Note-2 occurring at the foot of Rule 51-A. We say this because, the statutory rules oblige the manager to issue an offer for appointment and wait for the teacher to report within fourteen days. If such reporting does not occur, the manager has to issue yet another letter indicating that if in another seven days the teacher does not