IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11844 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BEENA JAMES V., VILAYIL HOUSE, NEAR CSI CHURCH, P.O.KODAKKAL, TIRUR-8, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, ALL CSI SCHOOLS IN MALABAR AND WAYANAD, CSI CORPORATE MANAGER'S OFFICE, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER M.R.SREELATHA FOR R1 AND R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------- WP (C) NO. 11844 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging failure on the part of the third respondent to honour the claim under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. The petitioner's mother died in harness on 20.08.1983. She was working as Headmistress under the third respondent. At the time of her death the petitioner was a minor. On attaining majority she submitted proper application before the second respondent raising 51B claim. Thereupon, the third respondent directed the petitioner to approach the Government and to get a favourable order in the matter of appointment under compassionate employment scheme. On being approached the Government the petitioner was informed as per Exhibit P3 that, the third respondent-Manager could take a decision on the application filed by the petitioner without any Government Order. The petitioner has produced WP (C) NO. 11844 of 2009 2 Exhibit P3 before the third respondent. Even thereafter no action was taken by the third respondent, to grant appointment to the petitioner under Rule 51B claim. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 2. On 09.10.2009 this Court passed an interim order. It is as follows:- “There will be a direction to the third respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher or at least as Full Time Menial in any existing vacancy and appropriate orders shall be passed within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this order”. Subsequently, the petitioner has produced a copy of the said order on 09.10.2009 before the third respondent, to enable the third respondent to comply with the direction thereunder. Thereafter third respondent has passed an order on 17.02.2010. The said order is produced by the petitioner as Exhibit P4. In Exhibit P4 it is stated thus: “In this connection I may inform you that at present there WP (C) NO. 11844 of 2009 3 is no vacancy of FTM or Junior Hindi Teacher in the schools under this Corporate Management to appoint the petitioner. The Corporate Management will consider her appointment according to the availability of the post vacant in schools under this Corporate Management as per Rules”. A perusal of Exhibit P4 would reveal that, the reason assigned for not honouring the claim of the petitioner under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A is the non-availability of vacancies. According to the petitioner on 31.03.2010 certain vacancies have arisen in the schools under the third respondent. Therefore, in the light of Exhibit P4 which was passed in terms of the order dated 09.10.2009 of this Court the third respondent is bound to take steps for appointment of the petitioner against any one of the vacancies that has arisen under the Corporate Management. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A in any of the WP (C) NO. 11844 of 2009 4 schools under the Corporate Management against any of the vacancies occured with effect from 01.04.2010. It is made clear that, in the light of Exhibit P4, the third respondent shall not effect any further appointment without considering the claim of the petitioner under Rule 51 B as recognized by the third respondent in Exhibit P4. This writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. Rkc