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.

JUDGMENT

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J. These appeals arise from the common judgment in two writ petitions namely W.P.(C) No.17999 of 2021 and W.P.(C)

No.26192 of 2021. As the writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment, the appeals are also disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment for convenience, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.17999 of 2021.

2. The mother of the petitioner, R.Remadevi Amma died in harness on 29.01.1989, while working as High School Assistant in the Vocational Higher Secondary School of which the fifth respondent is the Manager. The petitioner and her elder sister were the only children of the deceased. Both of them were minors at the time of the death of their mother. The elder sister of the petitioner, Remya R. Chandran, on attaining majority, preferred an application before the Manager of the School for employment assistance invoking Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (the KER ). The application preferred by the sister of the petitioner for employment assistance was not considered by the Manager. Instead, the Manager appointed another candidate in the vacancy that was existing at the time when the application was made. The dispute relating to the claim raised by the sister of the petitioner ultimately reached this Court and though this Court recognised the statutory right of the sister of the petitioner for employment assistance, the claim was turned down by this Court on the ground that the sister of the petitioner was not major as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy.

3. It is seen that when the sister of the petitioner got married later, she relinquished her claim for employment assistance in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred an application before the Manager for employment assistance. In the meanwhile, a few vacancies arose in the School in which the sister of the petitioner could have been accommodated, but the Manager filled up those vacancies ignoring the claim of the sister of the petitioner. The sister of the petitioner took up the matter before the Director of General Education and the said authority, in turn, directed the Manager to accommodate the sister of the petitioner in the next arising vacancy in the School according to her qualification. The Manager challenged the said direction of the Director of General Education before the Government in revision and it was while the said revision was pending that the sister of the petitioner relinquished her claim in favour of the petitioner. In the revision, the Government affirmed the impugned order of the Director of General Education and having regard to the fact that the sister of the petitioner had relinquished her claim in favour of the petitioner, the Government directed the Manager to appoint the petitioner as full-time menial in the School. Ext.P4 is the order issued by the Government in this regard. Ext.P4 order was challenged by the Manager in W.P.(C) No.32844 of 2010. The petitioner was the fifth respondent in the said writ petition. As per the judgment in the writ petition, though this Court affirmed the direction issued by the Government to the Manager to provide employment assistance to the petitioner, set at naught the direction in Ext.P4 order to appoint the petitioner as full-time menial in the School as she had also not attained the age of majority at the time of occurrence of the vacancies existed at the time of her application. The above writ petition, in the circumstances, was disposed of modifying Ext.P4 order to that limited extent and directing that the petitioner shall be considered for appointment in any of the vacancies that arise after 01.10.2007. Ext.P5 is the judgment in W.P.(C) No.32844 of

2010. Though Ext.P5 judgment was challenged by the Manager in

W.A.No.2208 of 2012, this Court affirmed Ext.P5 as per Ext.P7 judgment.

4. The Manager did not offer employment assistance to the petitioner inspite of Ext.P5 judgment, though