The court upheld that claims under Rule 51B are inferior to those under Rule 51A, and that violations of natural justice do not necessitate relief unless prejudice is demonstrated.

JUDGMENT

These Writ Petitions require to be heard and disposed of together, since the reliefs sought for by the petitioners are opposing each other and grant of reliefs in one will certainly depend upon the grant of reliefs in the other.

2. WP(C)No.17136/2020 has been filed by Sri.Febin J. Louis, who claims that he has got a right to be appointed as an Office Attendant in the services of the Louis Memorial Upper Primary School, Adimalithura, since his father died in harness, thus making him eligible for being so appointed under the provisions of Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules ( KER for short). He submits that however, instead of allowing his claim, the Educational Authorities have issued Exts.P4, P5 and P9 orders directing that a certain person by name Sri.Ajin P.V. be approved in the available vacancy, since he enjoys a superior right under Rule 51A Chapter XIVA of the .

3. The petitioner contends that the impugned orders are illegal and unlawful because all of them have been issued behind his back and without affording him an opportunity of contesting the claim of Sri.Ajin P.V., particularly on the question as to whether he had approved prior service, thus making him eligible under Rule 51A Chapter XIVA of the KER .

4. While so, Sri.Ajin P.V. has filed WP(C)No.24702/2020 seeking that Ext.P2 order of the Government be implemented and it is pertinent that this order is same as Ext.P9 in WP(C)No.17136/2020. Thus, he effectively claims that he is entitled to be appointed preferentially to Sri.Febin J. Louis and therefore, seeks that his appointment be approved by the competent Educational Authorities based on the directions of the Government.

5. I have heard Sri.George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil – learned counsel appearing for Sri.Febin J. Louis; Smt.Surya Mohan P. - learned counsel appearing for Sri.Ajin P.V. and Sri.P.M.Manoj – learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents.

6. The uncontested facts in these cases are that while Sri.Febin J. Louis claims appointment under Rule 51B Chapter XIVA of the KER , Sri.Ajin P.V. claims appointment on the strength of Rule 51A thereof.

7. Sri.George Varghese – learned counsel for Sri.Febin J. Louis, in fact, concedes that under the provisions of the KER , Rule 51B claim is inferior to Rule 51A claim and that if Sri.Ajin P.V. is indeed a Rule 51A claimant, then he may be entitled to be appointed to the available vacancy. However, the contention of Sri.George Varghese is that Ext.P9 order in WP(C)No.17136/2020 (which is the same as Ext.P2 in WP(C)No.24702/2020) and the earlier orders issued by the Educational Authorities, are in violation of the principles of natural justice, since his client was not even given an opportunity of proving that Sri.Ajin P.V. is not a Rule 51A claimant. He points out that even in Ext.P9, the Government had initially harboured a doubt whether Sri.Ajin P.V. is a Rule 51A claimant, since none of the records which would prove it had been made available before the competent Educational Authorities; but conceded, to a pointed question from this Court, that the said order finally records that Vigilance Department of the Directorate of General Education had found that Sri.Ajin P.V. worked in the school from 07.04.2003 to 31.10.2004 and that this had been approved, leading to him being paid salary by the District Educational Officer (DEO), Balaramapuram. He, however, submitted that these facts, though recorded in Ext.P9, have not been affirmatively proved by Sri.Ajin P.V. and therefore, prayed that this Court allow his client's plea against the impugned orders in WP(C)No.17136/2020.

8. Even when I hear Sri.George Varghese on the afore lines, the fact remains that Sri.Febin J. Luois does not even whisper in his pleadings in the Writ Petition that Sri.Ajin P.V. is not a Rule 51A claimant. His contentions are against the manner in which the impugned orders have been settled by the authorities, including the Gov