IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38061 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.VIJAYAKUMARI, WIDOW OF P.GOPALAN, RESIDING AT CHALLIPARAMBU HOUSE, PARUVASSERY.P.O, KANNAMBRA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE MANAGER, AIDED UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KANNAMBRA, PALAKKAD. 3. K.P.KRISHNADAS, S/O.A.K.RAJAMMA, RESIDING AT KANNAMBRA, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 38061 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner states that her husband was a Drawing Teacher in the school of which the 2nd respondent is the Manager. On the expiry of her husband on 04.06.2008, her son made an application for appointment, as provided under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV-A KER. Petitioner states that the said application was rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground that her son had not completed 18 years as on 01.01.2008. 2. According to her, thereupon, she submitted Ext.P2 application for appointment for herself and that has been rejected by the Manager stating that in the meanwhile the post has already been filled up by appointing the 3rd respondent. In view of this, petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 before the 1st respondent and who has forwarded the same to the Manager and Ext.P4 is the reply that has been submitted complaint in this writ petition is that the 1st respondent has not taken a final decision in this matter. 3. Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A KER provides for appointment of dependents of employees who die in harness. If the petitioner has complained to the 1st respondent about, the rejection of her claim by the Manager, the 1st respondent ought WP(c).No.38061/2008 /2/ to have considered the same and passed orders thereon. Since, according to the petitioner, the 1st respondent has not passed orders on Ext.P3, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 with notice to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.38061/2008 /2/