IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32020 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LINTU P.PANAKKAL,W/O.JOBIN MATHEW.K, KUTHOOR HOUSE,HOUSE NO.XXII/165,CHAVAKKAD PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 506 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER CHAVAKKAD,THRISSUR 680 506. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD 680 506. 5. THE MANAGER, M.J.D HIGH SCHOOL, KUNNAMKULAM PO,THRISSUR 680 503. ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT 6. THE TAHSILDAR, TALAPPILLY TALUK VADAKKANCHERRY. IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 4.11.2010 IN I.A.NO.15416 OF 2010. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32020 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The mother of the petitioner, Florence.K.V., died in harness on 11.7.2003 while working as a teacher in M.J.D. High School, Kunnamkulam. Her legal heirs are her husband Pappachan, the petitioner and her sister Tini.P.Panakkal. It is stated that the petitioner and her sister are qualified to get appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules. The father of the petitioner and the sister of the petitioner gave consent letters for the appointment of the petitioner, relinquishing their claims for appointment. 2. On 20.3.2010, the petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed form seeking appointment under Dying in Harness scheme. It is stated that though a vacancy arose in which the petitioner should have been appointed, the Manager appointed another person. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.20669 of 2010 which was disposed of as per WP(C) No.32020/2010 2 Exhibit P1 judgment dated 2nd July 2010, directing the District Educational Officer to consider and pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner complaining about the illegal appointment made by the Manager. The District Educational Officer passed Exhibit P2 order dated 20.8.2010 directing the Manager to inform the vacancies to the petitioner enabling her to apply with connected documents. The District Educational Officer also directed the Manager to give appointment to the petitioner in any of the vacancies which arose after 27.1.2004, if the petitioner is otherwise qualified. The Manager issued Exhibit P3 to the petitioner stating thus : “Further at the time of submission of your application, married sons and daughters of the employees who dies in harness were not eligible for employment assistance under the scheme. According to the latest Government Order (No. GO(P) 14/2010 P & ARD dated 12.4.2010) married sons/daughters should submit the dependency certificate from the Tahsildar for considering their application for employment assistance. In the circumstances WP(C) No.32020/2010 3 your application for appointment under compassionate employment scheme cannot be considered.” 3. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P4 application to the Tahsildar, Thalappilly for issuing dependency certificate. It is seen that the application was forwarded to the Village Officer, Kunnamkulam for enquiry and to submit a report. The marriage of the petitioner was solemnised on 18th May, 2008 and she is residing in her husband's house at Chavakkad. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P5 application to the Tahsildar, Chavakkad for issuing dependency certificate. According to the petitioner, she produced all the relevant documents before the Tahsildar for issuing the certificate. However, the certificate has not been issued. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Tahsildar, Chavakkad to issue the dependency certificate at the earliest. Certain other reliefs in connection with the main relief are also sought for in the Writ Petition, which are not necessary at present. It is WP(C) No.32020/2010 4 submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it would be sufficient, if relief No.(ii) is considered. 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the dependency certificate could be issued only after verifying the relevant details. The dependency certificate was not issued by the Tahsildar, Chavakkad since the petitioner did not furnish the name of the village in which she is residing. It is also submitted that the petitioner was residing in another village before her marriage and that enquiry should be conducted there also. 5. In Exhibit P5 application, the petitioner has stated the house name, house number, name of the street and the place. On a mere perusal of that address, the Tahsildar, Chavakkad must be able to say in which village that house is situated. The consideration of the application should not have been delayed on that ground. The second ground stated requires clarification from the side of the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce all the relevant documents before the Tahsildar, Chavakkad in this WP(C) No.32020/2010 5 regard within two weeks. The Tahsildar, Chavakkad shall dispose of Exhibit P5 within one month thereafter. I am sure that the Tahsildar would not cause delay in consideration of the request for issuing a dependency certificate on flimsy grounds. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl