IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 733 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19216/2003 Dated 06/11/2006 .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN WPC ------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, IDUKKI AT THODUPUZHA. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.E. HAMSA RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER IN THE WPC ----------------------------------- K.P.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. LATE PAZHANI, 1/47, KONGAMUNDI VEEDU, VATTAVADA, P.O.KOVILOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.NO.733 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants. The writ petitioner is the respondent. 2. The writ petitioner's father, who was a P.D.Teacher in Idukki district, died, while in service, on 19.2.1994. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application dated 20.1.1996 claiming employment under the dying-in-harness scheme. He was told by Ext.P2 that he should apply in the prescribed format. The petitioner submitted the application in the prescribed format only on 27.3.2001. In between, he filed an application on 21.2.2000 claiming employment but, it was also not in the prescribed format. The Director of Public Instruction, by Ext.P3, rejected his application on the ground that it was submitted belatedly. By that time, the Government issued G.O. (P)No.12/99/P&ARD dated 24.5.1999 containing the rules governing appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. As per the said Government Order, the application should be submitted within two W.A.No.733/2007 . 2 years of the death of the Government servant. In this case, the petitioner's father died in 1994. Therefore, the application was held to be submitted belatedly. Based on the said finding, Ext.P3 was issued. The petitioner moved the Government by submitting an appeal against Ext.P3. This Court by Ext.P5 judgment directed the Government to consider the said representation. The Government by Ext.P7 order dated 28.4.2003 rejected his claim. So, the writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P7 and seeking the consequential reliefs. 3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. It was found by the learned Single Judge that though it was not in the prescribed format, applications were filed in terms of the earlier Government Order issued by the Government in 1995 governing appointments under the dying-in-harness scheme. So, the learned Single Judge ordered that the petitioner's application may be treated as the one submitted in time and dealt with accordingly. 4. The official respondents have come up in appeal feeling aggrieved by he above direction. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. W.A.No.733/2007 . 3 5. If the petitioner's application is treated as the one filed under the 1995 Government Order, then it is common case that there is no time limit and therefore, the Government could have considered the application on merits. The only difficulty standing in the way of considering the application in that manner is that it is not in the prescribed format. The learned Single Judge took the view that non-submission of the application in the prescribed format is not of much consequence. 6. We feel that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is a plausible view on facts. An application submitted not in the prescribed format is only a defective application. It cannot be said that no application was submitted. The view taken by the learned Single judge cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference by us. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that the Government will be free to deal with the application in accordance with law, but the Government shall not reject the application on the ground of delay. The application of the writ petitioner shall be considered on merits in accordance with law by the competent authority among the respondents within three W.A.No.733/2007 . 4 months from today. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl