IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 36355 of 2009(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.REKHA, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM), KRKPM HIGH SCHOOL FOR BOYS AND VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADAMPANAD, KADAMPANAD SOUTH P.O. BY ADVS. MR.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SMT.N.SANTHA, MR.PETER JOSE CHRISTO, MR.S.A.ANAND, MR.RAMESH. C.R, MR.JOVY GEORGE VARGHESE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 010. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), KOLLAM, PIN-691 009. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA - 691 506. 5. THE MANAGER, KRKPM HS FOR BOYS AND VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADAMPANAD, KADAMPANAD SOUTH P.O.-691 553. 6. C.KALA, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM), KRKPM HS FOR BOYS AND VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADAMPANAD, KADAMPANAD SOUTH P.O.-691 553. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. SANDESH RAJA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.36355/2009-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 05/06/2002. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B1-4666/2002 DTD. 29/03/2003. EXT.P.3: COPY OF A PETITION DTD. 17/02/2009 REQUESTING GOVERNMENT TO HEAR THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE G.O.(R).NO.1049/2009/G. EDN. DTD. 11/03/2009. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE RELINQUISHMENT LETTER DTD.06/03/2009 OF SMT. KALA.C. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. G/37/2008-09 DTD. 06/03/2009. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE MANAGER FOWARDED TO THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09/06/2003. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 36355 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as H.S.A. (Malayalam) against a leave vacancy by Ext.P1 order of appointment. By Ext.P2, the 4th respondent has refused approval for the appointment on the ground that there is a 51 A claimant. Petitioner's appeal against Ext.P2 has been rejected by Ext.P4. Petitioner submits that the 6th respondent, who is the 51A claimant referred to in Ext.P2, has already submitted Ext.P5 statement of relinquishment wherein she has specifically stated that she has been appointed as H.S.A. in a regular vacancy. In this writ petition also although notice has been received by the 6th respondent she has not chosen to appear and contest the matter. Petitioner therefore submits that the objection regarding Rule 51A claim by the 6th respondent is no longer valid. Petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: W.P.(C)No. 36355 of 2009 -2- i) call for the records leading to Exts.P2 and P4 and quash them ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as High School Assistant (Malayalam) made by Ext.P1 within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. Admittedly the only ground of which the petitioner's appointment has not been approved is that the 6th respondent has superior claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A KER for appointment in preference to the petitioner. The Government Pleader does not dispute Ext.P5 statement of relinquishment, wherein the 6th respondent has stated that she has already been appointed as a H.S.A. regularly. The counsel for the petitioner submits that, that regular appointment is in one of the schools under the same management. Despite receipt of notice the 5th & 6th respondents have not chosen to appear and contest the matter. Since 6th respondent is W.P.(C)No. 36355 of 2009 -3- not interested, it can be safely assumed that as stated in Ext.P5 relinquishment letter, she had already been appointed regularly. That being so, the objection against the petitioner's appointment no longer survive. Consequently Ext.P2 order of the D.E.O and Ext.P4 order of the Government whereby Ext.P2 is confirmed are quashed. The 4th respondent D.E.O. is directed to approve the petitioner's appointment if the same is otherwise in order. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/