IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 OP.No. 28448 of 2002(J) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ ANCY JOSE, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. JOSE KOMBARA, KOMBARAKARAN HOUSE, SOUTH BAZAR, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 3. THE MANAGER, P.V.S. HIGH SCHOOL, PARAPPUKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.RAMANI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 27668 OF 2003 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.28448/2002 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.B2-6082/2001 ISSUED BY DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA DT. 1.11.2001. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP. NO37542/2001 DT. 27.3.2002. P3:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B2/15580/2002 DT. 12.8.02 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 17.9.02. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P. No. 28448 of 2002 J & WP(C) No. 27668 OF 2008 R = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of October 2008 J U D G M E N T In so far as W.P.(C) No. 27668/08 is concerned, the 1st petitioner was appointed as H.S.A. (Social Studies) in the school of which the 2nd petitioner is the Manager, with effect from 18.6.2001. By Ext. P10 order passed by the D.E.O, approval was rejected. That was confirmed by the Deputy Director in Ext. P11 order. By Exts. P12 and P14, the orders were confirmed by the Additional Director of Public Instruction as also by the Government. The reason stated is that the appointment was made overlooking the claim of the 5th respondent under Rule 51 B of Chapter XIV A, K.E.R. 2. In so far as the 6th respondent, who has filed O.P. No. 28448/02 claiming appointment in the place of the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 27668/03, is concerned, her mother was an employee of the school and expired on 27.8.1995. Though she made an application for employment, overlooking the same, the petitioner in O.P. No. 28448/02 & W.P.(C) No. 27668 OF 2003 -2- W.P.(C) No. 27668/03 was appointed. 3. Although several contentions have been raised such as that the 6th respondent had made the application beyond 2 years of the death of her mother and therefore her application was belated, that at the time of death she was not a dependent of the deceased, that along with the application she had not produced relinquishment of claims by other dependents, that her income limit was in excess of Rs.1.5 lakhs, that her husband is employed abroad, and that after the death of her mother though 5 appointments were made by the manager none was objected by her, I do not think that for the resolution of the controversy in these writ petitions, a detailed advertance to these contentions is necessary. 4. In W.P.(C) No. 27668/03, petitioner has positively averred that at the time when the 1st petitioner was appointed with effect from 18.6.2001, the 6th respondent was already married to one Jobby and her husband's income alone was more than Rs.1.5 lakhs per year. It is also stated, without being contradicted, that the 6th respondent is presently living with her husband who even now, is abroad. It is therefore contended that at the time when she was O.P. No. 28448/02 & W.P.(C) No. 27668 OF 2003 -3- appointed, the family of the 6th respondent was not in distress deserving appointment on compassionate grounds. The allegation regarding the income earned by her husband, is not disputed by the 6th respondent. That apart, it has also to be noticed that though the death occurred on 27.8.1995l, the application, though not in prescribed form, was made in July, 1999 and Ext. P1 formal application was made only in July, 2000. Thus, even the claim for appointment was made only after 5 years of the death of the mother. Therefore, by long lapse of time and also on account of the fact that the family of the 6th respondent was not in distress at the time when the impugned appointment was made, in my view, the 6th respondent cannot be held to be a person eligible for the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds. 5. This aspect of the matter is not seen adverted to either in Exts. P10, P11, P12 or P14 and had it been adverted to, in view of the law laid down repeatedly by the Apex Court and also this Court that appointment as a dependent under the compassionate appointment scheme is available only to a candidate from a family in distress and that too to enable the family to tide over the O.P. No. 28448/02 & W.P.(C) No. 27668 OF 2003 -4- financial crisis created on account of the untimely death of the bread winner, the claim could not have been allowed. Therefore, the rejection of approval evidenced by Ext. P10 and confirmed by Exts. P11, P12 and P13 deserves to be set aside and I do so. 6. W.P.(C) No. 27668/03 will therefore stand disposed of directing that the 4th respondent shall approve the appointment of the petitioner and disburse salary and allowances on that basis and as a consequence, O.P. No. 28448/02 filed for the implementation of the above orders will stand dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-