Compliance with court's direction for notional compassionate appointment leads to closure of contempt proceedings.

The petitioner has filed this contempt case alleging wilful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure I judgment dated 02.12.2025 of this Court in W.A.No.659 of 2025, whereby that writ appeal was allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 06.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.15990 of 2023. Paragraphs 8, 9 and also the last paragraph of the judgment dated 02.12.2025 in W.A.No.659 of 2025 read thus;

“8. The father of the appellant died in harness on 17.07.1985. On attaining majority and on acquiring the required qualifications, the appellant raised a claim underRule 51B of Chapter XIVAof KER. Due to continuous litigations, the appointment of the appellant as U.P.S.A. was approved only with effect from 01.06.2016 as per Ext.P10 order of the Assistant Educational Officer. Due to the delayed appointment of the appellant, he was treated as junior and was sent out due to loss of post during the academic year 2019-20. In Ext.P10, the appointment of the appellant was approved on a daily wage basis from 28.09.2015 to 31.03.2016. Respondents 10, 12, 13 and 14 were granted approval of their appointments for the vacancies in the year 2011-12. It is true that when the appellant was retrenched from service with effect from 16.07.2018 to accommodate T. S. Sharmila Jose as H.S.A. (Malayalam), who was reverted by Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2018, the appellant did not challenge Ext.P10 order of the Assistant Educational Officer. But it is to be noted in this case that throughout these years, after acquiring the qualification, the appellant was agitating his cause before various forums, such as the educational authorities concerned, before this Court and also before the Apex Court. Though for the first time he was granted appointment by the Manager in the year 2015, the orders in favour of the appellant were passed as early as in the year 2006 onwards. Moreover, though there is no material to prove the same, according to the appellant, he engaged a counsel to challenge Exts.P10, P13 and P14 orders before this Court, and the counsel had not filed the writ petition as instructed. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that within a short period after the passing of Ext.P10 order, the appellant was retrenched to accommodate another H.S.A (Malayalam) on her reversion. In such circumstances, the non-challenging of Ext.P10 by the appellant immediately after the passing of that order by the Assistant Educational Officer cannot be considered as belated.

9. From the materials placed on record, we notice that from the initial period of dispute itself, the stand of the Manager is that one vacancy that arose during the year 2010-11 was set apart for satisfying the Rule 51B claimant. Approval to the other appointees as U.P.S.A. was given on an undertaking that they will not raise any objection in revising their seniority based on the judgment pertaining to the Rule 51B claimant. The entitled appointment on compassionate grounds was not granted to the appellant for a lengthy period, due to the adamant attitude of the Manager, as evident from the continuous litigations as mentioned above. In such circumstances, we find force in the contentions of the appellant that Exts.P10, P13, P14 and P16 orders were passed without properly considering the contention of the appellant regarding the fixation of his appointment notionally to the vacancy that was set apart for Rule 51B claimant, which had arisen in the year 2010-11. Therefore, the orders under challenge are liable to be set aside to the above extent, of non- consideration of the claim of the appellant for notional appointment in the additional division vacancy which had arisen in the year 2010-11. The learned Single Judge failed to consider these contentions in their proper perspective while dismissing the writ petition