Timely application submission is crucial for compassionate appointments; failure to apply within stipulated limits invalidates subsequent claims.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANU, J.

1. As common issues are involved, these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in accordance with the array in W.P.(C)No.7379 of 2019.

2. Petitioner's father was Arabic Teacher of the 4^th respondent school and he died on 06.07.1990. Petitioner was aged 4 years at the time of the death of her father. Petitioner's grievance is that her claim under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV(A) of KER was overlooked by the Manager of the school and the Government rejected her claim.

3. Petitioner contends that Ext.P5 request dated 11.11.2004 was submitted by her to the manager immediately on completion of 18 years of age, raising a claim for appointment under Rule 51B. She states that Ext.P8, another representation, was submitted on 01.09.2005 to the then manager. On 20.04.2009, petitioner claims to have sent another representation produced as Ext.P9 to the manager. However, it was returned to her stating that it was not known as to who was the manager. On 27.07.2012, petitioner approached the Assistant Educational Officer. On 03.09.2012, the 3^rd respondent issued Ext.P11 clarifying that the petitioner should approach the manager. On 02.01.2013, a registered letter was sent by the petitioner to the then manager. The same was returned 'unclaimed'. On 20.12.2016, Ext.P13 was issued by the manager to the petitioner, stating that her claim was time barred and cannot be considered. On 05.12.2016, another representation was submitted to the A.E.O.

4. No vacancy was available in the school from 2006-07 to 2017-18. A vacancy arose on 01.06.2017 and another arose on 01.06.2018. Respondents 5 and 6 were appointed against those vacancies. On 11.08.2017, petitioner approached the 3^rd respondent requesting not to approve the appointment of the 5^th respondent. The 3^rd respondent rejected approval. The Manager, petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5990/2019, filed appeal before the 2^nd respondent on 12.07.2018. Fifth respondent thereafter filed W.P. (C)No.29211/2018. Pursuant to the judgment dated 10.09.2018 in the said writ petition the Government considered the appeal of the manager and the representation of the petitioner. By Ext.P19 dated 22.01.2019 Government found that there was nothing wrong with the appointment of the 5^th respondent and directed the A.E.O. to grant approval for the appointment of the 5^th respondent. Further, it was observed in Ext.P19 that the manager shall consider the petitioner for appointment in the next arising vacancy. This direction issued by the Government is under challenge in W.P.(C)No.5990/2019 filed by the manager. By Ext.P20 dated 16.02.2019, request of the petitioner was rejected by the Government.

5. Petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7379/2019 seeks to quash Exts.P19 and P20 orders issued by the Government. She seeks direction to the 4^th respondent to appoint her as LPSA with effect from 01.06.2017. In W.P.(C)No.5990/2019 the manager challenges the order dated 22.01.2019 to the extent it directs the manager to consider the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7379/2019 for appointment.

6. I have heard Sri.Dr.George Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Jenzia, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent and Sri.Tony Augustine, learned Government Pleader.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.7379/2019 submitted that the petitioner raised a claim for appointment under Rule 51B OF KER immediately on attaining the age of majority. Several representations were subm