Back
2019 Supreme(Ker) 310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, V.G.ARUN, JJ.
Manager, Naduvathur U.P. School Keezhariyur – Appellant
Versus
Bijeesh K and Ors. – Respondents
WA. No. 459, 466 of 2017
Decided On : 06-06-2019
For the Appellant : Sri. P.C.Sasidharan, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri. S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay, Smt.N.Santha, Sri. Peter Jose Christo, Sri. S.A. Anand, Advs., GP., Raji T. Bhaskar
Important Points:
" The time limit for preferring applications under the scheme will be 2 years from the date of death of Govt. servants. In the case of minor, the period will be within 3 years after attaining majority.
" The petitioner, he attained majority on 25.5.1997. The application seeking for compassionate appointment was filed 14 years after he became a major. The period prescribed for filing application being three years from attaining majority, it has to be held that the petitioner had submitted the application way beyond the prescribed period. That being the case, the Manager cannot be compelled to consider the belated claim. Hence, the direction to that effect in the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Headnote:Rule 9A of Chapter XXIV A of KER- The entitlement for compassionate appointment in cases where application under Rule 9A of Chapter XXIV A of KER -Government orders relating to employment assistance to the depends of the Government servants dying in harness shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in the matter of such appointments to a dependent of the non-teaching staff of an aided school dying in harness. The relevant Government order is G.O.(P) 12/99/E& ARD dated 24.5.1999.
Statement of facts:
The writ appeals are filed, challenging the direction in the impugned judgment to consider the claim for compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner/first respondent herein and to pass reasoned orders, without rejecting the application for reason of delay- Writ AppealNo.459 of 2017 is filed by the Manager of the Naduvathur U.P. School, to whom the direction is issued- Writ Appeal No.466 of 2017 is filed by the additional 5th respondent in the writ petition, who was appointed in the vacancy of Office Attendant which had arisen on 1.12.2013, to which the writ petitioner had staked claim.
Finding of the court:
The petitioner had no sustainable claim for appointment, the District Educational Officer, Vatakara shall reconsider the request for approval of the 5th respondent`s appointment and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment- Needless to say that in the event of the appointment of the fifth respondent being approved, he would be entitled for salary and other benefits, with effect from the date of his appointment.
Result: Writ appeals are hence allowed. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
V.G. ARUN, J.
The writ appeals are filed, challenging the direction in the impugned judgment to consider the claim for compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner/first respondent herein and to pass reasoned orders, without rejecting the application for reason of delay. Writ AppealNo.459 of 2017 is filed by the Manager of the Naduvathur U.P. School, to whom the direction is issued. Writ Appeal No.466 of 2017 is filed by the additional 5th respondent in the writ petition, who was appointed in the vacancy of Office Attendant which had arisen on 1.12.2013, to which the writ petitioner had staked claim.
2. The brief facts leading up to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner is the son of late Kunhiraman Adiyodi, who died-in-harness on 20.8.1991, while working as Peon in the Naduvathur U.P. School. The petitioner attained the age of18 years on 25.5.1997. According to the petitioner, as perExt.P1 dated 20.5.1997, he had requested the Manager to appoint him as Peon in the school. The petitioner followed up his first request by submitting Ext.P3 dated 3.5.2000 andExt.P5 dated 8.11.2011. By Ext.P6 order dated 16.1.2012, the AEO directed the Manager to appoint the petitioner in the next arising vacancy of Office Attendant. Again, by Ext.P11 dated 16.12.2013, the DEO directed the Manager to give priority to the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment while effecting appointment to the post of Office Attendant arising on 1.12.2013. But, contrary to the directions and without considering the petitioner's claim, the Manager appointed the 5th respondent as Office Attendant in the post that had fallen vacant on 1.12.2013 consequent to the retirement of one V.P. Ramakrishnan. Aggrieved by the refusal to consider the claim for compassionate appointment, the writ petition was filed praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Manager to appoint the petitioner forthwith as Office Attendant and also to ensure that no approval is given to the appointment of any candidate other than the petitioner to the vacancy of Office Attendant that had arisen in the Naduvathur U.P. School with effect from 1.12.2013. The further prayer in the writ petition was for a direction to the Deputy Director of Education to proceed against the Manager under the provisions of Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER.
3. The averments in the writ petition and the prayers therein were stoutly opposed by the Manager and the additional 5th respondent. It was contended by the Manager that at no point of time had the petitioner raised a claim for compassionate appointment. That, Sri.Kunhiraman Adiyodi was survived by his wife Smt.Yesodha, a son (the petitioner) and a daughter Smt. Bavitha. Smt. Yesodha was working in the Social Welfare Department and Smt. Bavitha was employed in the Sreeramakrishna Mission School. The petitioner, after graduation, had worked in the Middle East for a considerable period of time and after his return to India, he had worked as Extra Department Staff in the Postal Department and thereafter, in a private firm. The claim of the petitioner that he had submitted Ext.P1 request as early as on 20.5.1997 was refuted. It was contended that the seal affixed in Ext.P2 Certificate of Posting is that of Puthiyangadi Post Office, which his situated 40 Kms away from the petitioner's residence and that Ext.P3 request is seen to have been sent from the Punnassery Post Office, which is also situated 30 Kms awayfrom the petitioner's residence. It was pointed out that a relative of the petitioner had worked in the aforementioned Post Offices and the petitioner himself had worked in the Postal Department and hence, would have managed to fabricate the Certificates of Posting. It was contended that under no circumstances could the highly belated claim of the petitioner be entertained and hence, the Manager was well within her rights in appointing the additional 5th respondent to the vacancy that arisen on 1.12.2013.
4. In the c
