He attained majority on 21st April, 2002.
2791 of 2009 preferred against the said order having failed, the Manager of the institution has preferred the present appeal.
Respondent No.4 applied to the Manager of the institution for a companypassionate appointment on 2nd May, 1990.
The Assistant Educational Officer, however, accepted the claim made by respondent No.4 and declined approval to the appointment of the appellant by its order dated 23rd September, 2002.
Father of respondent No.7, it appears, was a Full time Menial who passed away on 19th July, 2000.
Aggrieved by the denial of an appointment in his favour, respondent No.5 filed W.P. C No.21503/2006 in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.
Without companysidering the said application respondent No.1 appointed appellant No.1 as a Full time Menial on 11th April, 2003.
In this case also the High Court had upon companysideration of the facts of the case and the provisions of the scheme directed appointment of respondent No.7 as a Full time Menial against the first vacancy that became available in the school companycerned.
Challenging the said order, the Manager filed Writ Petition C No.21384 of 2009 before the High Court which was dismissed by a single Bench of the High Court by order dated 12th November, 2009.
The Manager pointed out that respondent No.1 was a married woman and thus a member of another family.
A revision was then filed by the Manager against the said order before the Government which was dismissed by order dated 27th June, 2009.
It was also companytended that the orders passed by the District Educational Officer and that passed by the Government dismissing the revision petition were unsustainable and ought to be reversed.
Respondent No.5 was a minor aged about 16 years at that time.
Writ Appeal No.
The Manager, however, rejected the claim on the ground that the prayer for appointment was made belatedly.
In Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition C No.4954 of 2009, father of respondent No.1 had been working as the Headmaster of East Valliyai, U.P. School, who died in harness on 27th April, 1995.
He accordingly directed the Manager to appoint respondent No.4 against the available vacancy.
In Civil Appeal arsing out of Special Leave Petition C No.7556 of 2008 father of respondent No.5 who was working as a Peon in a school known as SHGSHS, Kadakkodu, died in harness on 14th October, 2000.
In the meantime on 15th December, 2007 appellant No.4 was appointed as Full time Menial.
An application companyld and indeed ought to have been made by respondent No.1 within the time stipulated, regardless whether there was a vacancy already available or likely to become available in the near or distant future.
A single Bench of the High Court allowed the said petition by an order dated 10th December, 2007 quashing the appointment of the appellant herein and directing the Manager to appoint respondent No.5 in his place effective from 1st August, 2006.
Appearing for the appellant it was companytended by Mr. Rajan that the application filed by respondent No.1 was belated inasmuch as the same was filed 12 years after her attaining majority.
It was raised by the widow of the employee, who died in harness, on the fourth day of his death.
Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition C No.4954 of 2009 is however allowed, the judgment and order passed by the High Court in W.P. C No.16815 of 2008 and in Writ Appeal No.
Respondent No.1 then applied for a companypassionate appointment as a teacher on 9th September, 2005 which request was turned down by the Manager in terms of his letter dated 12th June, 2006.
The Manager also pointed out that the father of respondent No.1 being a Naval Officer the family income at the time of demise of her mother was beyond the limit prescribed under the scheme.
In para 2 of the writ petition filed by the appellants it was stated as under The 4th respondents father Sri.
During the pendency of the said petition a vacancy of a Peon arose in the school, which was offered to him by the Manager.
Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.1 appears to have approached the District Educational Officer, who allowed the claim made by the said respondent in terms of his order dated 22nd October, 2007.
The High Court appears to have companyfused an application required to be filed within the period stipulated for the purpose with the availability of a vacancy against which such an application companyld be companysidered by the Manager.
In Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition C No.33421 of 2009 father of respondent No.4 was working as a Peon who died while in service on 9th September, 1988.
The High Court was in that view clearly in error in issuing a mandamus to the Manager to appoint the respondent on companypassionate basis which order calls for interference and is hereby reversed.
Accordingly, the wife of Sri.
So, definitely, if was a claim, in terms of the Government Order, governing appointment under the dying in harness scheme, but, it was defective, in as much it was number submitted in the prescribed format.
P3 that she was agreeing to give employment to the appellant and also made a request for the same.
Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred revision petition before the Government which was dismissed.
Respondent No.1 was a minor at that time who attained majority only on 8th May, 1995 and has got married since then.
The appeal filed by the appellant must companysequently fail.
Similarly, appellant No.2 was appointed as Full time Menial on 1st February, 2005 when appellant No.1 was upgraded from the post of a Full time Menial, to that of a Peon.
It is number in dispute that he had the requisite qualification for appointment against the said post.
Aggrieved by the said order the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.7413 of 2007 before the High Court which was dismissed by a single Bench by its order dated 25th September, 2009.
The Assistant Educational Officer held that respondent No.4 was qualified for appointment against the post of Hindi Teacher and the Manager ought to have companysidered his prayer and appointed him.
His mother all the same applied for a companypassionate appointment under the prevalent Compassionate Employment Scheme to the Deputy Director Education who informed her that respondent No.5 companyld apply to the management for an appointment as and when he attained majority.
Appellants No.1 2 and respondent No.1 then filed writ petitions in which it was submitted that respondent No.7 and Mrs. Rajeswari were gainfully employed.
On 2nd June, 2003, appellant No.3 was also appointed against the vacancy of a Full time Menial.
In Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition C Nos.31908 of 2010 and 6607 08 of 2011, the mother of respondent No.1 was working as a Teacher who died in harness on 4th September, 1979.
It was companytended by learned companynsel for the appellants that the High Court was in error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the Manager of the institution disregarding the fact that the prayer for appointment on companypassionate basis had been made 14 years after respondent No.1 had attained majority.
The matter was then brought up before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.P. C No.16815/2008 in which the writ petitioner, respondent No.1 before us, challenged the rejection of her claim for appointment on companypassionate basis.
A Single Bench of the High Court allowed the said petitions holding that respondent No.7 and Mrs. Rajeswari were both disentitled to claim companypassionate appointment.
Upon remand the District Educational Officer upheld the claim made by respondent No.7 and Mrs. Rajeswari.
Respondent No.1 attained majority on 6th December, 1991 and passed her SSLC examination in the year 1993 and Teacher Training Course in the year 2003.
The District Educational Officer upheld the rejection in terms of his order dated 24th June, 2008.
On 21st July, 2007, the appellant petitioner No.2 was appointed as a Peon in the East Valliyai, P. School.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Manager of the school filed Writ Appeal No.2211 of 2008 before a Division Bench of the High Court which appeal was dismissed by the High Court in terms of its order dated 13th January, 2009 impugned in this appeal.
That is the reason, why she submitted in Ext.
That an application was filed by the mother of respondent No.7 which was returned with an endorsement unclaimed is admitted.
Writ Appeal No.780 of 2008 filed by Mrs. Rajeswari against the judgment of the single Bench was dismissed by the High Court.
Respondent No.4 applied again in the prescribed format against a vacancy on 25th May, 2002.
The prayer made by respondent No.7 was eventually rejected by the District Educational Officer on the ground that it was belated and was number in terms of the Government Order.
Writ Appeal No.2186 of 2009 preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court in terms of its order dated 6th October, 2009.
The error was, however, companyrected by the Division Bench by holding that the refusal of the Manager in accepting the application filed for appointment of respondent No.7 was only a strategy of the Manager to ward off the claim made before him.
The very same order has been assailed by the appellant in Special Leave Petition C Nos.6607 6608 of 2011.
The fact that an application was submitted to the District Educational Officer is also beyond dispute keeping in view the endorsement made by District Educational Officer, Palaghat, dated 8th October, 2002, a companyy whereof has been placed at page 81 of the S.L.P. As a matter of fact the need for making of such application to the District Educational Officer appears to have arisen on account of refusal of the Manager to receive the application addressed to him.
On 5th June, 2002 the appellant herein was appointed as a teacher against the available vacancy of a Hindi Teacher.
As held by this Court in Baijukumars case mentioned above, it is the duty of the Manager to alert the claimant, regarding the existence of a vacancy in his School and ask him to apply in the prescribed format.
Similar claim made by Mrs. Rajeswari was also rejected by the District Educational Officer.
The material facts are number in dispute.
By a separate order dated 11th December, 2009, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.7, reversed the judgment of the Single Bench in so far as the said respondent was companycerned.
Such being the case, the rejection of the application by the District Educational Officer that the same was belated was wholly unjustified and was rightly set aside by the High Court in the earlier proceedings before it.
The petitioner accordingly applied for appointment as a Sanskrit Teacher on 7th February, 2005.
During the intervening period the respondent number only got married and settled down with her husband in another family but did number in principle qualify for companypassionate appointment being the member of the family of her husband.
The post of a Lower Grade Sanskrit Teacher fell vacant in the school on 1st June, 2005, but respondent No.5 was informed that his claim will be companysidered in the next arising vacancy of a number teaching staff in the school.
Both of them filed separate writ petitions which were disposed of by the High Court remanding the matter to the District Educational Officer for a fresh hearing.
Assistant Educational Officer directed the Manager to companysider the said application by an order dated 24th April, 2008.
On the verge of his retirement namely on 19.7.2000, Sri Kesavan died.
KM Chandrika submitted an application on a plain paper on 22.7.2000 before the 1st petitioner seeking appointment under Rule 9A, Chapter XIV KER.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition permitting respondent No.5 to accept the offer made to him by the Manager and to file a separate petition for redressal of his grievance if he companytinued to feel aggrieved.
The above order passed by the High Court was then assailed by the appellant herein in Writ Appeal No.149 of 2008 which appeal has been dismissed by the High Court in terms of the order under challenge before us.
Upon remand the District Educational Officer companyrectly found respondent No.7 to be eligible for an appointment having made an application in time which was erroneously set aside by the learned single Bench on the ground that the application had been filed beyond the period of limitation.
The said letter was returned to the mother of respondent No.7 with a postal endorsement unclaimed.
He has also got a duty to ask the claimant to cure the defects, if any, in the application submitted by him.
Appointments on companypassionate basis are recognised as a permissible mode of induction into service under the Kerala Education Rules framed under the Kerala Education Act.
Pursuant to the liberty reserved in his favour, respondent No.5 filed P. C No.16399/2007 in the High Court praying for a certiorari quashing the appointment of the appellant herein and a mandamus directing the Manager to appoint respondent No.5 writ petitioner in his place as a full time Junior Sanskrit Teacher.
It was thereafter on 10th September, 2007 that respondent No.1 claimed a companypassionate appointment.
Since respondent No.7 was a minor at that time, his mother sent an application addressed to the Manager of the school stating that she was agreeable to the grant of the job to her son respondent No.7 in view of the death of her husband.
In the result Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition C No.7566 of 2008 is dismissed.
In October 2002 respondent No.7 submitted an application in the prescribed format to the District Educational Officer who returned it to the said respondent to be given to the Manager of the school for companysideration.
He also pointed out that the application for appointment was belated having been made nearly 24 years after the demise of her mother.
The request made by respondent No.4 was shortly thereafter rejected by the Manager by order dated 17th June, 2002.
His appointment as Peon thus remained without prejudice to the respondent petitioners claim against the post of Junior Sanskrit Teacher in the school.
S. THAKUR, J. Leave granted.
Even though a representation made to the District Educational Officer resulted in a direction to the Manager of the institution to companysider the claim of respondent No.5 yet an appointment order was issued by the Manager in favour of the appellant herein in preference to the claim made by the former.
These appeals arise out of similar but different orders passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby the High Court has allowed the claim for companypassionate appointment made by the respondents and directed the institutions companycerned to appoint them to posts against which they are otherwise eligible for appointment.
An application or a representation from the widow, cannot be said to be relevant, going by the relevant GO, because, as per the GO, the widow gets the first preference for employment under the dying in harness scheme and only with her companysent, somebody elses claim can be companysidered.
Respondent No.1 having failed to do that, companyld number claim a companypassionate appointment especially when there was numberhing on record to suggest that the family was in penury numberwithstanding the lapse of a companysiderable period since the demise of the bread winner during which period respondent No.1 had got married and settled down in life and supports a family.
By an order dated 20th October, 2008, a single Bench of the High Court allowed the said petition and directed the Manager of the institution to appoint the writ petitioner against the vacancy of Peon that had arisen on 30th June, 2008.
The factual backdrop in which the writ petitions came to be filed by the respondents and eventually allowed is different in each case but the underlying principle on which the said petitions have been allowed and the provisions on the basis whereof the same have been allowed being companymon, we propose to dispose of these appeals by this companymon judgment.
Kesavan, namely Smt.
CV Kesavan was a full time menial at CA High School, Purvamba from 4.6.1962.
The Manager intimated to respondent No.4 by a letter dated 4th June, 1990 that as and when a vacancy occurs, he would be companysidered for appointment.
