The right to compassionate appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme is not absolute and must be claimed in a timely manner, reflecting the immediate needs of the deceased's dependents.

1. The petitioner claims the benefit of appointment under the dying - in - harness scheme framed under R.188A of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Rules. It is averred that the petitioner’s father, while working as the Secretary of the 1st respondent - Co - operative Society, died in harness on 29/03/1974. After the petitioner attained the age of majority, she claimed appointment to a post under the dying - in - harness scheme on 04/08/1990 and later she submitted application to the 3rd respondent - Joint Registrar of Co - operative Societies, Thrissur, on 16/08/1990 to issue necessary directions to the 1st respondent - Co - operative Bank to appoint her in the next arising vacancy. When a retirement vacancy arose on 01/05/1993, her claim for appointment to that post was overlooked and the 1st respondent had appointed one Sri. Gopi to the said post. Thereupon, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing a Writ Petition, OP No. 5707/1993 for redressing her grievances. A learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 24/11/1999 finally disposed of OP No. 5707/1993 (Ext. P1) by holding that the petitioner is eligible to get the said appointment under the dying - in - harness scheme even though she is married and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Attender in the 1st respondent - society in the retirement vacancy that arose on 30/04/1993.

2. Aggrieved by Ext. P1 judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in OP No. 5707/1993, WA No. 10/2000 was filed by the Co - operative Society and WA No. 417/2000 was filed by one Sri. C. K. Gopi. The Division Bench held in Ext. P2 judgment that the said Sri. C. K. Gopi was waiting from 1980 onwards for the said appointment and was entitled to get regular appointment to that post as per the binding settlement. The Division Bench of this Court as per Ext. P2 judgment dated 11/11/2002 thus allowed the said writ appeals holding that this Court cannot issue a direction to the bank authorities to appoint the petitioner and, accordingly, dismissed OP No. 5707/1993.

3. Later when Ext. P3 notification dated 13/02/2003 was advertised in a newspaper calling for applications by the 1st respondent - Co - operative Society, to two posts of Peons, the petitioner staked her claim for appointment to one of the two posts, it is averred. The petitioner had submitted application for selection and appointment pursuant to Ext. P3 and also attended the test and interview and she had also submitted representations to respondents 1 to 3 staking her claim. Later she came to know that her claim was rejected and two other persons, viz., additional respondents 4 and 5, have been appointed against the said two posts notified as per Ext. P3 dated 13/02/2003. It is in the conspectus of these facts and circumstances that the petitioner has chosen to prefer this Original Petition with the following prayers:
“i. To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pass suitable orders for appointing the petitioner as Peon in vacancy for which applications were invited by Ext. P3 notice;
ii. To declare that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the posts of Peon, for which applications were invited by Ext. P3 notice.”

4. The main contention of the petitioner is that she is entitled to be appointed to the post of Peon under the dying - inharness scheme framed under R.188A of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Rules. The sheet anchor of her case is that all objections raised by the respondents have been considered in Ext. P1 judgment and that the said judgment has been interfered in the appellate judgment as per Ext. P2 only for the reason that there is anot