IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 2211 of 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16815/2008 Dated 20/10/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 4: -------------------------------------- 1. MANAGER, EAST VALLIYAI U.P. SCHOOL, MUTHIYANGA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, 2. SAJITH K.V. PEON, EAST, VALLIYAI U.P. SCHOOL, MUTHIYANGA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. DEEPA M. DEEPA PRAJA, MUTHIYANGA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PANOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY. R1 BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W. A. No. 2211 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J The appellants are respondents 1 and 4 in WP(C) No.16815/08. The 1st respondent herein was the writ petitioner. The brief facts of the case are the following. 2. 1st respondent's father, who was the Head Master of the first appellant's UP School, died in harness on 27.04.95. She was a minor at that time. She attained majority on 08.05.95. The 1st respondent has passed VHSC examination. Therefore, she was qualified only for the post of Clerk or Peon. After the death of her father, the first vacancy in which she could be appointed arose only on 30.06.08 as a result of retirement of a Peon. Anticipating the availability of that vacancy, the 1st respondent applied to the Manager on 10.09.07, praying that she may be accommodated in the said vacancy. But, the Manager rejected her claim, by Ext.P3 order dated 27.05.08. The Manager in Ext.P3 held that as per GO(P) No.12/99/P&ARD dated 24.05.99, a minor dependent should apply WA No.2211/08 -:2:- for the post within three years of her attaining majority. The 1st respondent attained majority on 08.05.95 and therefore, she should have applied before 07.05.98. But, she applied only on 10.09.07. Therefore her application is belated, it was held by the Manager. 2. The 1st respondent challenged that order raising various grounds. In support of her claim, she relied on the decisions of this Court in S.N.G.S. High School v. Reji Sagar [2008 (1) KLT 1026], Fr.Antony Kavalakat v. District Educational Officer [1999 (1) KLT 615], Sajeesh Babu v. State [1996 (2) KLT 542] and also the unreported Division Bench decision of this Court in WA No.1164 of 2005. On the other hand, the appellants herein relied on the decisions of this Court in Corporate Manager, Diocese of Thrissur v. Jayanarayanan [2003(1) KLT SN Page 33], Sukumaran Nair v. State of Kerala [2005(1) KLT 430] and Deepak v. Secretary, General Education Department [2002(3) KLT 288]. 3. The learned Single Judge followed the latest Division Bench decision of this Court in S.N.G.S. High School v. Reji Sagar (supra). The said Division Bench decision was rendered, following the Division Bench judgment in WA No.1164 of 2005. SLP WA No.2211/08 -:3:- attempted against the judgment in WA No.1164 of 2005 was repelled by the Apex Court also. 4. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is attacked contending that the learned Judge has failed to advert to Annexure R1(a) Government Order, wherein the time limit of 3 years is prescribed for submitting application from the date of attainment of majority, if the dependent was a minor at the time of the death of the Government servant. It is submitted that in the absence of challenge to Ex.R1(a), the learned Judge should have followed it. The appellants also rely on the decisions of this Court in its favour, the copies of which are produced as Annexures 2 and 3 along with the appeal memorandum. 5. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge and pointed out that the learned Judge was right in following the latest judgment of the Division Bench of this Court on the above point, rendered relying on the unreported Division Bench decision of this Court which was affirmed by the Apex Court also. 6. Ext.R1(a) order is the order governing appointment under WA No.2211/08 -:4:- the dying-in-harness scheme in Government service. Normally, in the government service, hundreds of vacancies arise every year and a portion of those vacancies are set apart for appointment of candidates under the dying-in-harness scheme. Therefore, the candidates should apply within a reasonable time limit so that the Government can process them, prepare wait list of them and give appointment as and when the vacancies are available in the quota set up for appointment in the dying-in-harness scheme. But, in the case on hand, we notice that the first vacancy to which the 1st respondent applicant can be considered arose only after 13 years of the death of the incumbent's father. Therefore, the delay in making application canvassed by the Manager is only technical. The time limit prescribed in Ext.R1(a) can only be treated as directory in nature and not mandatory, as far as aided schools are concerned. 7. Going by the latest decision on this point in S.N.G.S. High School v. Reji Sagar(supra), it is the duty of the Manager to alert the claimant under the dying-in-harness scheme regarding her right to get appointment and get the application from her within the prescribed time limit. In this case, the Manager does not have any WA No.2211/08 -:5:- such contention in his pleadings. Finally, even before the vacancy arose, the incumbent has applied. Therefore, the technical contention raised by the Manager cannot be accepted. The same has been rightly rejected by a learned Single Judge. In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ttb