Remarriage does not disqualify a claimant for compassionate appointment under Rule 51B, recognizing the vested rights of dependents of deceased Aided School teachers.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

The petitioner, who is a claimant under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER, seeks to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the existing vacancy of Office Attendant in the 5^th respondent-School or in any other appropriate post within a time fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner states that her husband Mohanasundaram K.P. was working as High School Assistant (Social Studies) in the 5^th respondent-School. Mohanasundaram K.P. passed away on 17.08.2017 while in service. The petitioner is his legally wedded wife and they had no children in their wedlock. The petitioner was dependent on the deceased husband.

3. The petitioner being a Rule 51B claimant applied for compassionate appointment in the prescribed form, on 18.12.2017. The Manager of the School acknowledged the application and stated that as on that date, there was no suitable vacancy to accommodate the petitioner. The Manager assured that the petitioner's request will be considered as and when vacancy arises.

4. The petitioner states that she has passed SSLC. Her father passed away long ago and she has no brothers. The mother of the petitioner is aged. There was nobody to look after the petitioner upon the death of her husband. Therefore, the petitioner married Harinarayanan T. on 16.09.2018. After remarriage, the petitioner is not getting even family pension.

5. Though the petitioner requested the 5^th respondent for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds, the 5^th respondent did not respond positively. A vacancy of Office Attendant arose in the School on 31.03.2024. The petitioner again submitted an application. The 5^th respondent is, however, dragging the matter. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation to the District Educational Officer. The 2^nd respondent-Director General of Education informed the District Educational Officer as per Ext.P5 letter dated 03.12.2024 that remarriage is not a bar for getting compassionate appointment.

6. To the predicament of the petitioner, the 5^th respondent has now issued Ext.P6 letter dated 04.01.2025 stating that since the petitioner has remarried, she is not eligible to get compassionate appointment. The 5^th respondent further stated that the petitioner has not submitted application in the prescribed form and that she has not submitted a certificate showing that she is still dependent on her deceased husband Mohanasundaram. The petitioner seeks to set aside Ext.P6.

7. The counsel for the petitioner urged that since the petitioner is a claimant under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER and since remarriage is not a disqualification for compassionate appointment, the 5^th respondent ought to have accommodated the petitioner in the existing vacancy. The 2^nd respondent has already clarified the legal position in Ext.P5. The 5^th respondent is therefore compellable to grant appointment to the petitioner.

8. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Nakeri Vasudevan Namboodiri v. State of Kerala [2007 (4) KLT SN 57 (C. No.63)] and urged that the word “dependent of the deceased” have been so repeated often in Government Orders which would indicate that the requirement that the applicant himself should be a dependent of the deceased is an essential eligibility condition under the Scheme. This Court in the afore judgment has held that an applicant for compassionate appointment should have been dependent of the deceased at the time of his/her