The mandatory nature of the procedure under R.51A and the Manager's obligation to comply with R.51A when a vacancy arises subsequent to the relief of a teacher under R.49 or R.52, and the inability of the Manager to deny the statutory claim under R.51A on the plea that the teacher had submitted a relinquishment letter.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the Manager of a L. P. School, aggrieved by the judgment in O.P. No. 31294 of 1999. Writ Petition was preferred by the Manager challenging the orders passed by the educational authorities directing the Manager to appoint Smt. M. Pravida, sixth respondent, L.P.S.A. with effect from 7.6.1994.

2. Sixth respondent was appointed as L.P.S.A. during the period 1.7.1992 to 28.9.1992. That appointment was approved; by the fifth respondent, Assistant Educational Officer, as per order dated 31.8.1992. On 20.11.1997 a permanent vacancy arose in the school. Sixth respondent submitted that even though regular vacancy arose Manager did not take steps to appoint her. Consequently she filed complaint before the Assistant Educational Officer on 30.7.1998. She also filed complaint before the District Educational Officer Kannur and the same was forwarded by the District Educational Officer to Assistant Educational Officer, Taliparamaba. Assistant Educational Officer gave personal hearing to all the parties on 10.9.1998. Sixth respondent and Manager appeared before the Assistant Educational Officer on the said date. Enquiry revealed that vacancy of L.P.S.A. arose for the period from 7.6.1994 to 30.11.1994, 6.9.1996 to 4.12.1996, 13.1.1997 to 21.3.1997 and 2.6.1997 to 29.8.1997 and again permanent vacancy on 20.11.1997. Before the Assistant Educational Officer Manager submitted that appointment order was issued to sixth respondent on 19.11.1997 but due to health reasons she relinquished the said appointment by writing on the reverse side of the appointment order in the presence of witnesses. The Manager took up the stand that under such circumstances she could not be appointed. Assistant Educational Officer did not accept the contention of the Manager and found that the Manager has not complied with the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules and also the Circular issued by the Director of Public Instruction dated 6.1.1997. Assistant Educational Officer passed an order on 24.9.1998 directing the Manager to appoint sixth respondent within seven days of receipt of the said order.

3. Manager did not take any action on the basis of the said order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer. Consequently Assistant Educational Officer issued a notice dated 2.11.1998 to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against the Manager as per R.7 Chap.3 of the Kerala Education Rules. Manager aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer filed revision before the Government. Government issued notice to all the affected parties on 5.7.1999. Government found that Manager failed to comply with Note 2 to R.51A of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules and has illegally denied appointment to sixth respondent who is a R.51A claimant. Government declared that sixth respondent is entitled to get appointment from 7.6.1994 onwards notionally with all service benefits including seniority, subject to condition that pay and allowances will be paid only with effect from the date from which she joins duty in the school. It was also made clear that if there is any delay to give appointment order to sixth respondent she would be paid pay and allowances from the date of the Government order and the amount so paid would be recovered from the Manager. In spite of that Manager did not take any steps to give appointment to sixth respondent and filed the Writ Petition which was dismissed by the learned single Judge against which the present appeal has been filed.

4. We heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Govindh K. Bharathan and counsel for sixth respondent Sr. M. C. Nambiar and also learned Government Pleader Sri. C. K. Pavithran.

5. It is not in dispute that sixth respondent was appointed in the school for a period from 1.7.1992 to 28.9.1992 and the said appointment was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer dated 31.8.1992. Subsequently she was thrown out of service