IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 36633 of 2001(J) ----------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.M. SALEEM, S/O. MOOSA, THARAMMAL MEETHIL, ULLIYERI P.O., KOYILANDY. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, NADUVANNOOR SOUGH A.M.U.P. SCHOOL. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PERAMBRA. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA. 4. P.K. UMMER, PEON, NADUVANNOOR SOUTH A.M.U.P. SCHOOL, 5. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 36633 of 2001 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.59933/2001 IN O.P.NO.36633/2001 DISMISSED. 09.01.2008. SD/-S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF R2 REF. NO.B 1327/97 DTD 15.3.97. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.B6.7800/97 OF R3 DT. 15.1.98. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R5 DT. 15.3.98. EXT.P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.21389/01 DTD 20.7.01. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION TRIVANDRUM DT. 29.9.01. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No.36633 OF 2001 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner raised a claim for appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education rules as the dependant of T.M. Moosa, who died while working as an Asst. Teacher in the 1st respondent’s School. Overlooking the claim of the petitioner, the 4th respondent was appointed as a Peon in the School. In view of the objection raised by the petitioner, the appointment of the 4th respondent was not approved by the Educational Authorities. In an appeal, the 3rd respondent directed the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the 4th respondent. The petitioner challenged the same in revision before the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent confirmed Ext.P2 by Ext.P5 order. Exts.P2 an P5 orders are under challenge in this original petition. O.P. No.36633/01 2 2. The petitioner raises the contention that Ext.P2 order was passed without making the petitioner a party to the appeal filed by the 1st respondent and without hearing the petitioner. The contention on merit is that the 4th respondent worked only for a period from 29.8.91 to 4.11.91 which cannot give rise to a claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of KER, recognizing which alone Ext.P2 order was passed. The petitioner would further contend that in any event for the service of the 4th respondent in leave vacancy in 1991, the petitioner’s right under 51B which arose in 1998 cannot be denied. Although there is some merit in the first contention that Ext.P2 is bad for violation of principles of natural justice, I am not inclined to go into the same at this point of time since Ext.P5 order has been passed by the Director of Public Instruction after hearing the petitioner on merits. In any event, it is settled law that a claim under Rule 51A overrides a claim under rule 51B. The petitioner’s father died only on 24.12.96. Petitioner's right under Rule 51B arises only from that date whereas the 4th respondent had obtained claim under Rule 51A as far back as in 1991. Therefore on any account O.P. No.36633/01 3 the 4th respondent has a superior claim over the petitioner for appointment to the vacancy which arose in 1997. As such I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P. No.36633/01 4