IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointment claims must be filed within statutory time limits; delays undermine the right to appointment.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

Since a common issue is involved in both these writ petitions, they were heard and disposed of by a common judgment.

W.P.(C) No.9268 of 2022

2. The 5^th respondent, the Manager of an aided school appointed the petitioner herein as Full Time Menial in the promotion vacancy of one Smt. G.S. Ambily as per Ext.P1. When the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner was forwarded, the same was rejected by the 4^th respondent as per Ext.P2 for the reason that the 6^th respondent who is having a 51B claim has not been given appointment. Aggrieved by the same the Manager preferred an appeal before the 3^rd respondent. The father of the 6^th respondent, late K.A.Vijayan, who was working as Physical Education Teacher in the School, died in harness on 29.02.1996. However, his children did not submit an application within time. The 1^st respondent has specified time limit of 2 years from the date of death to submit the application and in case of minors, application has to be made within 3 years from the date of attaining majority. The 6^th respondent did not submit any application within the prescribed time limit. In fact Ext.P3 application was submitted by the 6^th respondent only on 18.12.2017. The 6^th respondent had approached the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and the said Commission by Ext.P4 order directed respondents 2 and 3 to consider the application of the 6^th respondent sympathetically. Based on Ext.P4, the 4^th respondent directed the 5^th respondent Manager as per Ext.P5 to consider the application submitted by the 6^th respondent, which was rejected as per Ext.P6 order. However, by Ext.P7 order the 4^th respondent directed the 5^th respondent to appoint the 6^th respondent in the first vacancy as per the qualification. Later, the 4^th respondent by Ext.P8 again issued a direction to appoint the 6^th respondent in the existing vacancy. The petitioner, the 5^th respondent Manager and one Sri. Yadhukrishnan A. (the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7941 of 2022) who was appointed as Clerk, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.21734/2019. While so, the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner as Clerk was rejected by the 4^th respondent as per Ext.P9 order. Thereupon the above said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext. P10 judgment relegating the petitioner to file an appeal against Ext.P9 order. Ext.P11 appeal was preferred, which was rejected by Ext.P12 order. In Ext.P12 the 3^rd respondent entered into a finding that the dependents of late Vijayan had submitted applications for compassionate employment during various periods and the same was not considered by the Manager and therefore, the claim of the 6^th respondent under Rule 51B KER is sustainable. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed appeal before the 2^nd respondent. The said appeal was reject by the 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P13. Aggrieved by Ext.P13, Ext.P14 revision petition was preferred by the petitioner before the 2^nd respondent and the said revision petition was rejected as per Ext.P16. It is aggrieved by the same that the above writ petition has been filed.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk by the 5^th respondent in the retirement vacancy of one K.G.Vipin, the vacancy which arose on 22.05.2019 as per Ext.P1. The approval of appointment was refused by the 4^th respondent DEO for the reason that the 6^th respondent - a 51B claimant was not appointed in spite of the direction issued by the Human Rights Commission in this regard. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, the issue was considered by the 3^rd respondent and by Ext.P5 the request for approval of appointment of the petitioner was rejected and held that the 6^th respondent is entitled for appointment as he is 51B claimant. An appeal was preferred as Ext.P6 and the same was rejected as per Ext.P7 order. Ext.P8 is the copy of the application submitted by the 6^th respondent for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme da