IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 64 of 2008() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2737/2006 Dated 06/08/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- SAITHUM BEEVI (FORMERLY ARABIC TEACHER, PALLISSERIKKAL L.P.SCHOOL, SASTHAMCOTTA) D/O.LATE BEEVI KUNJU, RESIDING AT PUNNAVILA PADINJATTATHIL HOUSE, PAILISSERIKKAL, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI, SRI.T.R.RAJESH, SRI.M.R.ANISON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SALANUDEEN, ARABIC TEACHER, PALLISSERIKKAL L.P.S., PALLISSERIKKAL P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM. 2. THE MANAGER, PALLISSERIKKAL L.P.SCHOOL, PALLISSERIKKAL P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, SASTHAMCOTTA. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KOLLAM. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE ADDL.DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (ACADEMIC),KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.A.ABRAHAM FOR R1 GP SMT.R.BINDU R3 TO R7 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.10.2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------ WA No.64 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 15th October 2009 Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed by her, challenging Ext.P5 order of the Government, rejecting her claim for appointment as Lower Grade Arabic Teacher in the 2nd respondent's school and upholding the approval of appointment of the 1st respondent. The appellant has worked in the 2nd respondent's school as Lower Grade Arabic Teacher from 01.10.1985 to 09.12.1985 and thereafter, from 13.1.1988 to 15.3.1988. Both the appointments were approved and therefore, the appellant was a claimant under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA KER for appointment to the vacancies, which arose in future, in the cadre of Lower Grade Arabic Teacher. A vacancy arose in that cadre during the academic year 2000-01. But, instead of appointing the appellant, the 1st respondent was appointed on 22.11.2000. There were several rounds of litigations before this Court and before the statutory authorities. It is unnecessary to refer to the details thereof. Finally, as directed by this Court, the matter was reconsidered by the WA 64/08 2 Government with notice to all parties. The Government also, as per Ext.P5 order, held against the appellant and in favour of the 1st respondent. Therefore, the Writ Petition was filed, challenging Ext.P5 and seeking consequential reliefs. The claim of the appellant was resisted mainly relying on two grounds. 2. Firstly, it was contended that she had relinquished her claim validly by an instrument, executed in the presence of a Notary Public. Secondly, it was contended that the Manager had sent appointment orders twice to her at her last known address. Those letters were returned unserved. Therefore, the claim of the appellant, if any survived under Rule 51A, stood forfeited, it was submitted. 3. The learned Single Judge accepted both the above contentions of respondents 1 and 2 and dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this Appeal. 4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. In view of the decision of this Court in Lakshmikutty Amma v. Vijayalakshmikutty (1992(2) KLT 341), the relinquishment letter of a claimant under Rule 51A cannot be pressed into service to reject her claim under the said Rule. The said decision has been followed by this Court consistently. So, even if the relinquishment letter is genuine, the same will not WA 64/08 3 affect her rights under Rule 51A. The rights under the said Rule can be forfeited, only by following the procedure provided therein. But, in this case, we notice that the appellant has been issued with two appointment orders, which were sent to her local address known to the Manager. Both those letters were returned unserved. The appellant has got a case that respondents 1 and 2 influenced the Postman and ensured non-service of those appointment letters on her. It is unnecessary for us to go into the genuineness of the explanation offered by the appellant for non-receipt of the appointment letters. Whatever the Manager has to do, has already been done by him. He has sent appointment orders twice, in the last known address of the appellant. He cannot be asked to wait indefinitely to make the appointment. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that those appointment letters were issued after the appointment of the 1st respondent. We think, the same will not make any difference. The Manager, in good faith, might have acted upon the relinquishment letter. But, upon proper advice, he decided to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 51A and issued letters of appointment to her twice. Since the incumbent did not turn up, the Manager should be conceded freedom WA 64/08 4 to retain the hand, he has already appointed, so that the students get the services of a Teacher. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition, also taking note of the fact that the Manager has sent two appointment orders to her. We agree with the said view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WA 64/08 5