A Rule 51A claimant in educational appointments is entitled to vacancy consideration without needing to apply, emphasizing management obligations.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was initially appointed in the temporary vacancy of Language Teacher as Junior Hindi Teacher in P.N. K .M Upper Primary School, aravoor when it was under the management of the erstwhile Manager. Her appointment was for the period from 3.7.1980 to 31.3.1981, in a leave vacancy which had arisen when one V. .Rajappan Nair, who was continuing as Junior Hindi Teacher was deputed for training. As evident from the endorsement made on Ext.P1 appointment order by the Assistant Educational Officer, Punalur, the appointment of the petitioner for the period from 3.7.1980 to 31.3.1981 was approved and she became a Rule 51A claimant.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that, in spite of the fact that she is a Rule 51A claimant who is entitled for preferential appointment in the next arising vacancy, the subsequent manager, who purchased the school in 1988, was taking hasty steps to appoint a fresh hand in the vacancy that had arisen on 01.06.2004, on the retirement of Sri.V. K .Rajappan Nair. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation before the 1st respondent Manager requesting that she may be appointed as Hindi Teacher in the retirement vacancy with effect from 2.6.2004.

3. Since there was no response from the Manager, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.23694 of 2004, which was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment, by which the District Educational Officer, Kottarakkara, the 3rd respondent herein, was directed to look into Ext.P3, with notice to the petitioner and also to the 1st respondent Manager and take appropriate action in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. In Ext.P3 judgment this Court has made it clear that, the petitioner would produce two copies of the judgment and the Writ Petition before the 3rd respondent and that the 3rd respondent would serve one copy to the 1st respondent Manager. Ext.P4 produced along with this Writ Petition would show that, the registered letter sent by the learned counsel for the petitioner addressed to the 1st respondent Manager was returned with an endorsement 'refused'. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation before the Deputy Director of Education, Quilon, the 4th respondent herein, and thereafter moved this Court in this Writ Petition seeking various reliefs.

4. By order dated 2.3.2006 in I.A.No.648 of 2006 the subsequent appointee was impleaded as the additional 6th respondent.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent Manager, in which he has not disputed the fact that the petitioner is a Rule 51A claimant. According to the 1st respondent, the school originally belonged to one Sri.P.G.Gopala Pillai, who died in the year 1987. Thereafter his wife Smt.Chelllamma assumed the office of the Manager. Later in the year 1988 the school along with its property was purchased by the 1st respondent, vide sale deed dated 9.1.1991. Thereafter, the Department has approved the change of management. On 31.3.2004 Sri.V. K .Rajappan Nair, who was working as part time Hindi Teacher and drawing salary for full time post, retired on superannuation. Consequently a vacancy of part time Hindi Teacher arose on 1.5.2004. In the said vacancy the

1st respondent Manager appointed the 6th respondent. Approval for that appointment was rejected by the 2nd respondent. According to the 1st respondent Manager, he was unaware of the preferential claim of the petitioner under Rule 51A Chapter XIV A of KER at the time of appointing the 6th respondent. A reading of paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent Manager would make it explicitly clear that, he has not denied the specific averment in paragraph 9 of the Writ Petition that, immediately after the receipt of Ext.P3 judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner sent a copy of the same to the 1st respondent Manager by registered post, which he refused to accept. According to the 1st respond