A claimant under Rule 51A is entitled to appointment consideration from the first vacancy arising after initial approval, reinforcing the obligation of educational authorities to adhere to this legal framework.

JUDGMENT

I am considering these Writ Petitions together since the petitioners challenge the same order of the Government and because the reliefs to be granted in one will certainly have some bearing on the reliefs to be granted in the other.

2. W.P.(C)No.30020/2017 has been filed by Smt.K.K.Sathi, who is stated to be working as an Upper Primary School Teacher in 'Niduvaloor AUP School', Kannur. She says that she was originally appointed in the said school against leave vacancies during three spells in the academic year 1993-94 and that all such appointments were approved with effect from 11.11.1993. She asserts that she thus became a claimant under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules ( KER for short), being entitled to be appointed in the next arising vacancy. She alleges that, however, when vacancies arose in the school on 16.06.1997 and thereafter, her claim was disregarded by the Manager – Smt.Karthyayani (now deceased) and that other persons were appointed. She explains that the 6th respondent-Smt.Reena was appointed to the first arising vacancy, which arose on 16.06.1997 and that three other teachers were appointed to the subsequently arisen vacancies.

3. Smt.K.K.Sathi says that she, therefore, approached this Court by filing W.P.C)No.18171/2001, which was disposed of through Ext.P3 judgment, whereby, the competent Assistant Educational Officer (AEO) was directed to consider her claim in terms of law. She says that the AEO, thereafter, issued Ext.P4 order on 04.09.2001, holding that the petitioner had permanently relinquished her Rule 51A claim and that this was done relying upon a letter produced by the Manager before the said Authority, dated 24.03.2000. She says that she, therefore, preferred a Revision before the Government, which culminated in Ext.P6 order, wherein, it was found that the alleged relinquishment letter was a fabricated one and consequently, the Deputy Director of Education was directed to issue appropriate orders, upholding the claim of the petitioner under Rule 51A of the KER .

4. Smt.K.K.Sathi says that the Deputy Director thereafter issued Ext.P7 order directing the Manager to appoint her to the vacancy which arose on 16.06.1997, on the strength of her earlier approval on 11.11.1993; and that since the Manager did not accede to this, she was constrained to approach this Court again by filing W.P(C)No.18890/2004, which ended in Ext.P7 judgment, wherein, her claim was reiteratingly upheld and the Manager was directed to appoint her within a week therefrom. She says that, however, two other teachers of the school filed a third party appeal, after obtaining leave of this Court, before a learned Division Bench and that this was finally disposed of through Ext.P9 judgment, in which again, her claim was found irreproachable and the contentions of the appellants therein rejected.

5. Smt.K.K.Sathi asserts that it was only thereafter that the Manager appointed her with effect from 04.10.2005; and that this appointment was approved by the AEO only with effect from that date, through Ext.P10 order. She says that she had, therefore, no other option but to approach the Government against this approval granted by the AEO through a Statutory Revision and that when the Government did not consider the same, she was compelled to file W.P.(C)No.3269/2006, which, however, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, through Ext.P11 judgment, thus forcing her to file an intra-court appeal before a learned Division Bench, which finally ended in Ext.P12 judgment.

6. Smt.K.K.Sathi points out that in Ext.P12 judgment, the learned Division Bench found favour with her and directed the Government to consider her Revision filed against the order of the AEO, namely Ext.P10, within a time frame. She alleges that in spite of all these, Government has issued Ext.P1 order rejecting the request for approval of her appointment with effect from 16.06.1997; but further directing that steps be taken against the M