IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 668 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.21960/2002 Dated 22/11/2007 .................... APPELLANT: 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------- THE MANAGER, CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOLS UNDER ST.THOMAS VALIYAPALLY, RANNI PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4 ------------------------------------------------ 1. SMT.ELSY K.THOMAS, KALATHIL HOUSE NEELAMPEROOR, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT (NOW WORKING AS PART-TIME L.G.HINDI TEACHER) ST.THOMAS U.P.SCHOOL CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOLS UNDER ST.THOMAS VALIYAPALLY, ANGADI, RANNI 2. SMT.RENY K.ABRAHAM, W/O.KURIAN K.PETER KUNDAMATTU HOUSE, P.O.ANGADI, RANNI PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 668 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated 31st March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The Manager, who was the 2nd respondent in the writ petition is the appellant. The writ petitioner is the 1st respondent. The rival claim put forward by the writ petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein Smt.Reny K.Abraham for appointment to the post of Lower Grade Hindi Teacher was the subject-matter of the writ petition. The writ petitioner staked her claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the K.E.R, whereas the 2nd respondent's claim was under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A of the K.E.R. The Director of Public Instruction, by Ext.P6 order, directed to appoint the 2nd respondent in preference to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, who was already a claimant under Rule 51A, felt aggrieved and filed the writ petition, challenging Ext.P6. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed to accommodate her in preference to the Rule 51B claimant, the 2nd respondent herein. Hence this appeal by the Manager. WA 668/08 2 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Appeal are the following: The 2nd respondent's mother was a teacher in the school. She died on 29.5.1993. The 2nd respondent applied, claiming appointment under Rule 51B on 15.4.1998. She being a married daughter, her claim was rejected. The same was upheld by this Court also. In the meantime, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner was appointed in a short-term leave vacancy of Lower Grade Hindi Teacher from 7.1.1999 to 31.3.1999. She was again appointed from 21.6.1999 to 2.11.1999. Those appointments were duly approved also. Taking note of her claim under Rule 51A, when a regular vacancy arose on 6.6.2001, she was accommodated in that vacancy. In the meantime, the Government issued a new Government order on 24.5.1999, governing the appointments under the dying-in-harness scheme. The Government issued a letter on 6.1.2001, clarifying that the married daughters are also eligible to be appointed under the dying-in-harness scheme, provided the candidate is a dependent. Based on that communication, the 2nd respondent attempted a review petition in the earlier Writ Appeal filed by her, which stood dismissed, holding that the married daughter is ineligible to be considered for appointment under the dying-in- harness scheme. The said R.P was also dismissed. Later, she moved the WA 668/08 3 D.P.I., by filing Ext.P3 application on 10.10.2001. The Director, after hearing both sides, upheld the claim of the 2nd respondent, by Ext.P6 order and directed the Manager to appoint her under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A of the K.E.R. 3. As stated earlier, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner challenged that decision by filing the writ petition. The Manager has chosen not to challenge it. He did not even file a counter affidavit in the writ petition. Finally, the writ petition was allowed, upholding the appointment of the writ petitioner. But, the learned Judge directed that the 2nd respondent, who is the claimant under Rule 51B may be accommodated in the next arising vacancy in the school in any of the categories of posts available. Feeling aggrieved by the second direction issued in favour of the 2nd respondent, the Manager has filed this Writ Appeal. 4. It is open to doubt whether the Manger, who has chosen not to challenge Ext.P6, can maintain this Writ Appeal. But, we are not going into this technical aspect, though the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.V.A.Muhammed addressed certain arguments on that aspect. For the purpose of this case, we assume that he can maintain this Writ Appeal. But, we notice that as per Ext.P6, the appellant has to accommodate the 2nd WA 668/08 4 respondent. Needless to say, the 1st respondent being a Rule 51A claimant, has also to be accommodated. The result of the judgment of the learned Single Judge is that their preferential positions changed. Firstly, the 1st respondent has to be accommodated and in the next arising vacancy the 2nd respondent has also to be accommodated. If Ext.P6 was remaining valid, which the Manager has chosen not to challenge, the preference would have been the other way. Firstly, the 2nd respondent has to be accommodated and in the next arising vacancy the 1st respondent would be appointed. Therefore, practically, there is no grievance to the appellant-Manager by the decision of the learned Single Judge. So, we are not inclined to entertain this Writ Appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/