R. Sreelatha vs Aravindakshan G on 16 October, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 83 of 2008()


1. R. SREELATHA, W/O. GOPINATHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ARAVINDAKSHAN G.,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

4. THE MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI

                For Respondent  :SRI.ASOK.M.HERIAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :16/10/2009

 O R D E R
     K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
                  ------------------------------
                     W.A. No.83 of 2008
                  ------------------------------

              Dated this, the 16th day of October, 2009


                           JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The fourth respondent in the Writ Petition challenges

the judgment of the learned Single Judge in this appeal. The

writ petitioner was a Rule 51-A claimant for the post of Full

Time Menial which arose in the school of the fourth respondent

herein. The appellant was a claimant under Rule 51-B. It is

settled position in law that claim under Rule 51-A will prevail

over the claim under Rule 51-B. But, the Deputy Director of

Education and the Government held in favour of the appellant

by relying on a relinquishment letter, Ext.P3, issued by the first

respondent/writ petitioner. It is settled position in law that

there is no provision for relinquishment of a claim under

Rule 51-A, by issuing a relinquishment letter. The right under

Rule 51-A of Chapter XIVA, K.E.R., will be forfeited if the

claimant does not join duty on an appointment order being

issued by the Manager and thereafter another registered letter

W.A. No.83 of 2008

– 2 –

is sent to him alerting that someone else would be appointed if

the claimant does not join duty within seven days. If the

Manager follows the above procedure, and even thereafter the

first respondent does not join duty, then only his claim under

Rule 51-A will be lost. In view of the above position, we find no

reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single

Judge as per which the order of the Deputy Director and the

Government have been quashed, for overlooking the claim of

the first respondent, relying on Ext.P3 relinquishment letter.

The Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and it is accordingly

dismissed.

Sd/-

K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.

Sd/-

P. Bhavadasan,
Judge.

DK.

(True copy)