IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 64 of 2008()
1. SAITHUM BEEVI (FORMERLY ARABIC TEACHER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SALANUDEEN, ARABIC TEACHER,
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGER, PALLISSERIKKAL L.P.SCHOOL,
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
5. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
6. THE ADDL.DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
7. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY
For Petitioner :SMT.S.KARTHIKA
For Respondent :SRI.K.A.ABRAHAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :15/10/2009
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
——————————————————————
WA No.64 OF 2008
——————————————————————
Dated 15th October 2009
Judgment
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The writ petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed
by her, challenging Ext.P5 order of the Government, rejecting her
claim for appointment as Lower Grade Arabic Teacher in the 2nd
respondent’s school and upholding the approval of appointment of
the 1st respondent. The appellant has worked in the 2nd respondent’s
school as Lower Grade Arabic Teacher from 01.10.1985 to
09.12.1985 and thereafter, from 13.1.1988 to 15.3.1988. Both the
appointments were approved and therefore, the appellant was a
claimant under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA KER for appointment to
the vacancies, which arose in future, in the cadre of Lower Grade
Arabic Teacher. A vacancy arose in that cadre during the academic
year 2000-01. But, instead of appointing the appellant, the 1st
respondent was appointed on 22.11.2000. There were several
rounds of litigations before this Court and before the statutory
authorities. It is unnecessary to refer to the details thereof. Finally, as
directed by this Court, the matter was reconsidered by the
WA 64/08 2
Government with notice to all parties. The Government also, as per
Ext.P5 order, held against the appellant and in favour of the 1st
respondent. Therefore, the Writ Petition was filed, challenging Ext.P5
and seeking consequential reliefs. The claim of the appellant was
resisted mainly relying on two grounds.
2. Firstly, it was contended that she had relinquished her claim
validly by an instrument, executed in the presence of a Notary Public.
Secondly, it was contended that the Manager had sent appointment
orders twice to her at her last known address. Those letters were
returned unserved. Therefore, the claim of the appellant, if any
survived under Rule 51A, stood forfeited, it was submitted.
3. The learned Single Judge accepted both the above
contentions of respondents 1 and 2 and dismissed the Writ Petition.
Hence this Appeal.
4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. In view of the
decision of this Court in Lakshmikutty Amma v. Vijayalakshmikutty
(1992(2) KLT 341), the relinquishment letter of a claimant under Rule
51A cannot be pressed into service to reject her claim under the said
Rule. The said decision has been followed by this Court consistently.
So, even if the relinquishment letter is genuine, the same will not
WA 64/08 3
affect her rights under Rule 51A. The rights under the said Rule can
be forfeited, only by following the procedure provided therein. But, in
this case, we notice that the appellant has been issued with two
appointment orders, which were sent to her local address known to
the Manager. Both those letters were returned unserved. The
appellant has got a case that respondents 1 and 2 influenced the
Postman and ensured non-service of those appointment letters on
her. It is unnecessary for us to go into the genuineness of the
explanation offered by the appellant for non-receipt of the
appointment letters. Whatever the Manager has to do, has already
been done by him. He has sent appointment orders twice, in the last
known address of the appellant. He cannot be asked to wait
indefinitely to make the appointment. The learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that those appointment letters were issued after
the appointment of the 1st respondent. We think, the same will not
make any difference. The Manager, in good faith, might have
acted upon the relinquishment letter. But, upon proper advice,
he decided to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 51A
and issued letters of appointment to her twice. Since the
incumbent did not turn up, the Manager should be conceded freedom
WA 64/08 4
to retain the hand, he has already appointed, so that the students get
the services of a Teacher. The learned Single Judge has dismissed
the Writ Petition, also taking note of the fact that the Manager has
sent two appointment orders to her. We agree with the said view
taken by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails
and it is dismissed.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
WA 64/08 5