Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.
RESHMI R. CHANDRAN – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 17999, 26192 of 2021
Decided On : 20-10-2022
Kerala Education Rules, 1959 - Rule 51B, 5, 9A - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Compassionate Appointment - Entitled to be Appointed in First Vacancy - Initiate Action Against Manager - Seeking a declaration that she is entitled to be appointed in first vacancy in School - Issuance of directions to official respondents to initiate action against Manager in terms of KER for non-complying with directions - Basis of policy is that it recognises that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon untimely death of employee while in service.
Findings of the Court:
A learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench repeatedly held that claim of petitioner ought to be considered in any of vacancies which may have arisen and in future - In view of judgments in lis inter partes rendered by a learned Single Judge, as confirmed by their Lordships of Division Bench, Manager cannot be heard to contend that several years having elapsed, petitioner cannot claim benefit of statutory right under Rule 51B - Manager cannot be heard to contend that judgment rendered by this Court was on basis of her concession and directions so issued cannot confer any benefit to petitioner herein - Nature of contentions advanced by Manager and long and arduous line of litigation between parties would make it emphatically clear that Manager was prepared to spare no effort to ensure that petitioner is deprived of her statutory claim - In that view of matter, Court is of view that necessary directions can be issued to ensure that directions issued by this Court are complied with in its letter and spirit - Necessary directions can also be issued to 3rd respondent to take up Ext.P11 and take appropriate action against Manager in terms of Rule 7 Chapter III of KER, if situation so warrants.
Result: Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
1. W.P. (C) No. 17999/2021 is filed by Smt. Reshmi R Chandran seeking a declaration that she is entitled to be appointed in the first vacancy that has arisen in the Vocational Higher Secondary School, Chathiyara, in the posts to which she is qualified in view of the declarations made by this Court and the consequent orders issued by the Government. She has also sought for issuance of directions to the official respondents to initiate action against the Manager in terms of the KER for non-complying with the directions.
2. W.P. (C) No. 26192 of 2021 is filed by the Manager, seeking to quash the orders issued by the educational authorities directing the Manager to appoint Resmi R. Chandran in view of her statutory right under Rule 51B of the KER to the next arising vacancy.
3. Since common issues are involved, both these cases are taken up and disposed of by a common judgment.
4. Brief facts are as outlined below:
(b) Remya, the elder daughter, claiming that she is qualified to be appointed as Clerk/ Peon/Attender/Full-Time Menial in the aided schools under the compassionate employment scheme, submitted an application on 19.08.2002. When her claim was rejected, she approached this Court and filed O.P. No. 38807/2002.
(c) A learned Single Judge of this Court in Remya R Chandran vs. D.E.O. Mavelikkara, 2005 (1) KLT 702, after considering the entire facts and circumstances, took the view that Rule 5 of Chapter XXIV (B) which requires that the person shall have attained 18 years of age as on the first day of January in which the appointment is to be made cannot be ignored. On facts, it was noted that the claimant had not attained 18 years of age in the year 2002 when the vacancy had arisen, and therefore, she was not eligible for appointment to the post. The contention of the Manager that long years had elapsed since the death of her mother, was not accepted and it was held that the rights of the claimant under Rules 51B and 9A being statutory rights, the claimant was entitled to apply. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court took the view that the rights of Smt. Remya under Rule 51B and Rule 9A are statutory rights, and therefore, she was entitled to make an application as and when she became major as of the first January of the year in question. Paragraph No. 9 of Remya R. Chandran (supra) is extracted below for convenience.
9. It is difficult to concede to the position that R.5 of Chap.24B requiring that the person shall be 18 years of age as on the first day of January in which the appointment is to be made, is liable to be ignored. If that be so, I am constrained to take the view that as regards the appointment of the third respondent to the post in the year 2002 cannot be held to be illegal for the reason that it was overlooking the case of the petitioner. This is for the reason that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment to the said post. The further contention taken by the respondents is that 13 years have gone by since the death of the mother of the petitioner and there is no urgent need. The rights of the petitioner under R.51B and 9A are statutory rights. Petitioner is entitled when she became a major, to apply within three years, if the other conditions are satisfied. It is to be noted that though it is true that the petitioner's father is an employee in the Excise Department, he has remarried and has two children. The financial limits as to income not having been breached, it cannot be said that the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of the statutory right. However, the Writ Petition has to fail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petition has to fail for the only reason that in terms of the Rules and Order, as more elabo
Employment - Rule 51B was introduced in statute book - After the introduction of said Rule, a liability is cast on Managers to give employment to a dependent of an Aided School teacher or a member of....
Dependents of deceased employees are entitled to compassionate appointments for vacancies arising post-enactment of relevant rules, affirming their statutory rights despite the time since the employe....
Compassionate appointment claims must be filed within statutory time limits; delays undermine the right to appointment.
Timely application submission is crucial for compassionate appointments; failure to apply within stipulated limits invalidates subsequent claims.
A petitioner is entitled to employment assistance under Rule 51B despite the mother's death occurring prior to the rule's introduction, as affirmed by binding prior judgments.
Compassionate appointments should consider actual hardships faced by dependants rather than strict adherence to procedural timelines, promoting social justice and support for indigent families.
Compassionate appointments must be evaluated with a humanitarian approach, especially for minors at the time of the employee's death, and rigid application of time limits is not appropriate.
Compassionate appointment applications must be submitted within one year of the employee's death, with strict adherence to guidelines to ensure timely relief for families in financial distress.
Compassionate appointment - Government Resolution - Petitioner was 8th standard pass and educational qualification at relevant point of time was 4th standard pass and subsequently he acquired qualifi....
If giving of an application within one year is held to be mandatory and binding on the applicant in terms of Rule 5, so would be sub -Rule (2) of Rule 6 upon the State and its instrumentalities.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
