IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 28108 of 2009(G) PETITIONER(S) : NARAYANAN T.M., FULL TIME MENIAL, POLACHIRAKKAL HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.PADAGIRI, NELLIAMPATHY, APALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.BENZIR SRI.G.G.MANOJ SRI.JAICE JACOB RESPONDENT(S): 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 5. THE MANAGER, POLACHIRAKKAL HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.PADAGIRI, NBELLIAMPATHY, PALAKKAD. 6. K.P.INDIRA, W/O.LATE ACHUTHA PRAKASAN, ACHU DEVIKRIPA, POKUNNI P.O., VADAVANNUR, PALAKKAD. 7. K.P.PRASANTH KUMAR, S/O.LATE ACHUTHA PRAKASAN, ACHU DEVIKRIPA, POKUNNI P.O., VADAVANNUR, PALAKKAD. ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM FOR R6 & R7 SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN FOR R5 SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN FOR R5 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 28108/2009. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 PHOTO COPY OF ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DT. 22-6-2000. EXT.P2 REVISION PETITION DT. 27-8-2005. EXT.P3 LETTER DT. 17-7-2002. EXT.P4 LETTER DT. 13-8-2002. EXT.P5 LETTER DT. 17-8-2002. EXT.P6 LETTER DT. 12-6-2003. EXT.P7 ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DT. 4-7-2003. EXT.P8 LETTER DT. 20-1-2004. EXT.P9 LETTER DT. 8-6-2005. EXT.P10 LETTER DT. 21-2-2008. EXT.P11 LETTER DT. 16-5-2008. EXT.P12 ORDER DT. 22-1-2005. EXT.P13 ORDER DT. 20-10-2005. EXT.P14 REVISION PETITION DT. 16-11-2005. EXT.P15 LETTER DT. 25-7-2008. EXT.P16 LETTER DT. 30-9-2008. EXT.P17 LETTER DT. 16-10-2008. EXT.P18 ORDER DT. 5-12-2008. EXT.P19 REVISION PETITION DT. 2-2-2009. EXT.P20 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C. NO. 4798/2009. EXT.P21 GOVT. ORDER DT. 12-8-2009. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 28108 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 5th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as a full time menial in an aided school against a regular vacancy, which arose on 1-7-2003. That appointment was approved by the 4th respondent and salary and allowances were disbursed to the petitioner. However, later, the salary and allowances due to the petitioner were withheld without any notice. On enquiry by the petitioner, he was informed that Sri. Achutha Prakash died in harness while working as a full time menial in the school on 25-6-2002, and therefore the claim of the dependent of the deceased employee should have been considered before the petitioner's appointment could have been approved. The petitioner approached the educational authorities in the matter, However, by Exts.P2, P13, P18 and P21, the petitioner's contentions have been rejected. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned orders. 2. The petitioner's specific contention is that the vacancy in which the petitioner was appointed arose on 1-7-2003 and the petitioner was appointed with effect from 4-7-2003. As on that date, the 7th respondent, who claims preferential appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of the KER as the dependent of an employee who died in harness, was still a minor and he became major only on 28-2-2004. Therefore, according to the petitioner, by no stretch of imagination, the 7th respondent could have laid claim to the vacancy which arose on 1-7-2003. Hence, neither on the date of occurrence of the vacancy nor on the date of appointment of the petitioner, the 7th respondent was a major and therefore the orders upholding the claim of the 7th respondent to that vacancy is clearly illegal is the contention of the petitioner.. 3. I have heard the parties, including the counsel for W.P.C. No. 28108/2009 -: 2 :- respondents 6 and 7. 4. In view of the specific contention raised by the petitioner regarding the question as to whether the 7th respondent was a minor at the time of appointment of the petitioner. I specifically asked the counsel for the 7th respondent as to whether the same is correct and the counsel for the 7th respondent candidly admitted that the 7th respondent was a minor on that date. If that be so, the petitioner's appointment could not have been interfered with on the ground that the 7th respondent had a claim for the said vacancy. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. It is declared that the appointment and approval of the petitioner as full time menial with effect from 4-7-2003 are perfectly legal and valid and that he is entitled to salary and allowances attached to the post held by him. Withheld salary of the petitioner shall be released to him as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, I make it clear that this will not stand in the way of the 7th respondent preferring claims for subsequent vacancies, which have arisen after the 7th respondent has become major. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/