IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 1998 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.12954/2008 Dated 10/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- THE MANAGER, KEEZHAL U.P. SCHOOL, C. PADMAVATHI AMMA, AGED 74 YEARS, W/O. NARAYANA KURUP (LATE) MANAGER, KEEZHAL U.P. SCHOOL, P.O. KEEZHAL, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT SAGAR JYOTHI P.O. KARUVAMPURAM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.T.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST. 5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THODANNUR, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST. 6. A.SANTHA, W/O. JAYACHANDRAN, AROTH HOUSE KLEEZHAL P.O. VIA VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST. GP SMT.R.BINDU FOR R1 TO R5 R6 BY SMT.P.V.ASHA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, ALONG WITH WA 2000/09, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------ WA Nos.1998 & 2000 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 24th September 2009 Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. WA No.1998 of 2009 Unsuccessful before the Government and later, before the learned Single Judge of this Court, the Manager of an aided school, has filed this Writ Appeal, to resist the claim of a claimant under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A KER, for payment of salary for the period, she was wrongly denied appointment. The brief facts of the case are the following : 2. The appellant Manager appointed the 6th respondent as Part- time Hindi Teacher in his school on 5.1.1971, in a maternity leave vacancy. The said appointment was approved. The next vacancy in the school in the cadre of UPSA arose, only on 01.04.2002, as a result of retirement of a Hindi Teacher, on 31.03.2002. The appellant, instead of appointing the 6th respondent, went for appointment of an open market candidate. The 6th respondent took up cudgels, which led to proceedings before the departmental officers and litigations before this court. The departmental authorities WA No.1998/09 2 did not approve the appointment of the fresh hand, for the reason of denial of appointment to the 6th respondent. This court, by Ext.P6 judgment, directed the Manager to appoint the 6th respondent as Part-time Hindi Teacher, in obedience to the direction issued by the Assistant Educational Officer. The appellant appealed. The appeal was disposed of by Ext.P9, directing the DEO to consider the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Assistant Educational Officer. The District Educational Officer passed Ext.P10 order, holding that since the 6th respondent has already crossed the age of superannuation, she cannot be re-appointed. It was also held that the appellant will be responsible for the loss suffered by the 6th respondent. The appellant attempted a revision against that order before the Government. The Government dismissed that revision by Ext.P16, reiterating that the Manager is bound to compensate the loss suffered by the 6th respondent. The Writ Petition was filed, mainly challenging Ext.P16 order. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition. In the meantime, the Deputy Director of Education, invoking his power under Rule 7 of Chapter III, computed the amount to be paid to the 6th respondent and intimated the same to the Manager. WA No.1998/09 3 3. This appeal is filed, mainly canvassing two points. The first point is that a person relieved on termination of a short term leave vacancy cannot be treated as a 51A claimant, even if his appointment is approved. The said position canvassed, runs counter to the consistent view taken by this court ever-since the introduction of Rule 51A in the KER. So, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the said contention. 4. The next point canvassed is that at the time of claiming re- appointment, the 6th respondent was over-aged. That point is also covered by several decisions of this court, against the appellant. So, the learned Single Judge rightly rejected that contention also. The very same points were urged before us also. For the grounds relied on by the learned Single Judge, which we approve, the contentions raised by the appellant have to be rejected. We do so. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the 6th respondent has moved the civil court, claiming arrears of salary. The said suit was dismissed, taking note of Ext.P16 order of the Government. So, the 6th respondent is guilty of pursuing parallel proceedings, it is submitted. We find nothing wrong with the above conduct of the 6th respondent. We are not impressed by such hyper-technical WA No.1998/09 4 contentions raised by the appellant to wriggle out of his liability. As wages of his sin, he is bound to duly compensate the 6th respondent. That has been ordered by the Government and rightly affirmed by the learned Single Judge. So, we find no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. WA No.2000/09 In view of the dismissal of WA No.1998/09, this appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE True copy PA TO JUDGE sta WA No.1998/09 5