Eligibility under Rule 51A requires a full academic year of approved service as amended, directly impacting appointment approvals.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2026 The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P9 order of the 2^nd respondent declining approval to the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Part Time Hindi Teacher and Ext.P10 consequential order of the 5^th respondent directing the Manager of the 6^th respondent to remove the petitioner from the attendance rolls of the School.

2. The petitioner states that she was initially appointed as Hindi Teacher in a leave vacancy from 09.08.2000 to 21.12.2000 by the Manager of the 6^th respondent-School. The said appointment was approved as per Ext.P1. The petitioner therefore staked a Rule 51A claim based on Ext.P1 appointment order.

3. Thereafter, treating the petitioner as a Rule 51A claimant, the Manager appointed the petitioner to the post of Part Time Junior Hindi Teacher on 15.07.2021 as per Ext.P3 order. The said appointment was also approved by the 5threspondent as can be seen from Ext.P4. It is obvious that Ext.P3 appointment was granted treating the petitioner as a Rule 51A claimant.

4. While so, the 5^th respondent-Assistant Educational Officer issued a letter to the petitioner seeking to give explanation on the objection raised by the Deputy Director of Education on Ext.P4 appointment. The petitioner submitted her reply. A hearing was conducted. The petitioner appeared in the hearing online.

5. The 2^nd respondent, however, found that the petitioner was not having Rule 51A claim after amendment to the KER on 16.04.2005 and therefore, all the appointments in the vacancies arising after 16.04.2005 shall have 10 months duration as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The 2^nd respondent so held in Ext.P9 order dated 25.03.2025. Thereupon, the Assistant Educational Officer issued Ext.P10 letter dated 27.03.2025 to the Manager directing to remove the petitioner from the rolls of the Teacher and to stop payment of salary.

6. The 2^nd respondent submitted that by order dated 25.03.2025, the 2^nd respondent found that the petitioner was not having Rule 51A claim. As per Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules , 1959, Rule 51A eligibility requires one full academic year of approved service, as amended by G.O.(P). No.121/2005/P&ARD dated 16.04.2005. Prior to this amendment, more than 60 days of approved service was sufficient.

7. However, following the amendment dated 16.04.2005, the claim of those who had service either before or after the amendment was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court inJayasree V. S. v. State of Kerala[2014 (4) KHC 280]. The judgment was later set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manager, VKNM Vocational Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala and others [(2016) (1) KHC 430], which stated that to be eligible forRule 51Abenefits under the KER regardless of whether the service was before or after the amendment one must have full academic year of approved service.

8. It is to be noted that the petitioner’s initial approved appointment was from 09.08.2000. The amendment to the KER came only on 16.04.2005, which mandated that to stake a Rule 51A claim, the appointment should be of at least 10 months’ duration. It is on that ground that the petitioner’s subsequent appointments are found to be illegal.

9. It may be noted that the petitioner is aged 51 and is nearing the age of superannuation. The petitioner was appointed as Part Time Hindi Teacher granting age relaxation by the Government. During the interregnum, the petitioner has appeared for K-TET Examination and has cleared the K- TET Examination as can be seen from Ext.P14 Mark List.

10. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the case, I am of the view