IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14425 of 2008(P)
1. K.V.HASEENA,
... Petitioner
2. K.V.MEHBOOB,PALIYALIYIL HOUSE,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY SECRETARY TO
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
3. DISTRICT EUDCATIONAL OFFICER,WANDOOR.
4. ASSISTANT EDUCATRIONAL OFFICER,AREECODE,
5. MANAGER,M.K.K.H.M.A.U.P.SCHOOL,
6. K.K.RAJEENA,M.K.K.H.M.A.U.P.SCHOOL,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent :SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :07/11/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.14425/2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are the children of late K.V. Moosa, who was
an Arabic teacher in the school, of which the 5th respondent
is the Manager. Sri. Moosa expired on 18.5.1996. In June,
1996, the first petitioner, one of the daughters of Late
Moosa, was appointed as Arabic Teacher in the school.
That appointment was approved.
2. Long thereafter, in February, 2006, another vacancy
arose in the school. It is stated that the second petitioner,
an youngest son of late Moosa moved an application before
the 4th respondent, who in turn issued Ext.P2 directing the
Manager to appoint the 2nd petitioner extending the benefit
of Rule 51-B Chapter XIV-A KER. In the meanwhile, the 6th
respondent was appointed in the vacancy that arose in June,
Wp(c).No.14425/08 2
2006 and the approval of appointment sought for was
declined by the AEO as per Ext.P3. The Manager pursued
the matter in appeal before the DEO who by Ext.P4
confirmed Exts.P2 and P3.The DPI also confirmed the orders
passed by the Subordinate Officers as per Ext.P5.
3. The Manager thereupon filed a revision before the
Government and that resulted in Ext.P6. By Ext.P6, the
Government allowed the revision and took the view that the
first petitioner was appointed extending the benefit of rule
51-B Chapter XIV-A KER and that with that appointment,
the Manager discharged his obligation under the Rule and
therefore there was no substance in the claim raised by the
2nd petitioner for appointment under Rule 51-B Chapter
XIV-A KER. It was directed that the 6th respondent’s
appointment made as early as in 2006 shall be approved.
Contending that Ext.P6 order was passed without notice to
the first petitioner, she filed Ext.P7 review before the
Government and thereafter filed this writ petition praying to
Wp(c).No.14425/08 3
quash Ext.P6 and directing the 5th respondent to grant
appointment to the 2nd petitioner under Rule 51-B, Chapter
XIV-A KER.
4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners may
contended that the Government itself had stayed the
operation of Rule 51-B chapter XIV-A KER and that this
continued until the said order of stay was lifted with effect
from 16.1.1997. Therefore the claim of the Manager that in
June 1996, the the first petitioner was appointed under rule
51-B is unsustainable. It is also their case that the
procedures laid down for appointment under rule 51-B
Chapter XIV-A KER have not been complied with. It is
therefore stated that the claim that the appointment was
made under rule 51-B is devoid of merit. It is also his case
that the first petitioner had ceased to be the dependent of
the deceased by virtue of her marriage in 1990 and
therefore the appointment was not under Rule 51-B but was
a regular appointment. It is stated that this could not
Wp(c).No.14425/08 4
deprive the second petitioner, of his entitlement for the
benefit of Rule 51-B. Counsel also placed reliance on the
Division Bench judgment in S.N.G.S High School V. Raj
Sagar(2008(1)KLT 1026) and contended that as an when a
vacancy arose it was the obligation of the Manager to offer
appointment to the rightful claimant under Rule 51B Chapter
XIV-A KER and that this obligation is not diluted even if an
application is not made by the claimant.
5. Respondents 5 and 6, the Manager and the Teacher
contested the claim of the petitioner. According to the 5th
respondent Manager, Rule 51-B Chapter XIV-A KER created
a statutory liability on the manager to provide employment
assistance to a dependent of the deceased teacher. It is
stated that the Rule was in the statute book as early as from
March, 1990 and the executive order issued by the
Government could not have affected its efficacy. It is stated
that the first petitioner was appointed on 3.6.1996
extending the benefit of compassionate appointment and
Wp(c).No.14425/08 5
that this appointment was approved and the fact that the
appointment was under the compassionate category is
mentioned in the service book. It was stated that during the
hearing of the revision, this fact was disclosed to the
Government and the service book and a certificate to that
effect was also produced. Yet another contention raised by
the Manager is that the first petitioner is not aggrieved by
Ext.P6 and that irrespective of Ext.P6 her service in the
school continues undisturbed and therefore she has no
locus standi to challenge Ext.P6. Yet another plea that is
raised is that the second petitioner has not so far made any
application for appointment and that even according to him
the claim raised was before the AEO.
6. I have considered the submissions made by both
sides. The only question that arises for consideration is
whether the appointment of the first petitioner can be said
to be one under Rule 51-B Chapter XIV-A KER. Admittedly
the Rule inserted in the statute book with effect from 3rd
Wp(c).No.14425/08 6
March, 1990. Irrespective of the effect of the executive
order suspending the rule, the fact remains that soon after
the death occurred on 18.5.1996, the first petitioner was
appointed in the School with effect from 3.6.1996. This
appointment was also approved. It is also to be noticed that
no other dependent of the deceased teacher has raised any
claim in this behalf so far. It is stated in Ext.P6 that, it is
noted in the service book of the first petitioner that the
appointment is a compassionate appointment and that she
is the only qualified member in the family. The fact that
appointment was under compassionate ground is also
certified by the AEO. Therefore, the fact remains that
irrespective of the efficacy or otherwise of Rule 51-B
Chapter XIV-A KER, the first petitioner was appointed
extending the benefit of compassionate employment
scheme. If that be so, having regard to the fact that the
employment assistance was once extended to the family at
the time when it was in distress and enjoyed by the first
Wp(c).No.14425/08 7
petitioner, in my view, it is not open to the first petitioner to
contend that at the time when she was appointed, she had
ceased to be a dependent of the deceased, and therefore
the employment should not be counted as one under the
compassionate employment category. Therefore, I find no
illegality in the order impugned. Writ Petition fails and is
dismissed.
Now that, by Ext.P6 the appointment of the 6th
respondent is ordered to be approved, needless to say that
he will be entitled to all consequential benefits.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
vi.
Wp(c).No.14425/08 8