The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ appeal challenging a government order rejecting a teacher's claim for appointment. The Court held that a relinquishment letter does not bar a Rule 51A claim and that sending appointment orders discharged the respondent's duty.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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.
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.
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
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a relinquishment letter can bar a claim under Rule 51A of Chapter 14A of the Kerala Service Rules.
Whether non-service of appointment letters returned unserved forfeited the appellant's claim.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lakshmikutty Amma v. VijayalakshmikuttyFollowed¶28
Lakshmikutty Amma v. Vijayalakshmikutty (1992(2) KLT 341)
SAITHUM BEEVI
SALANUDEEN
THE MANAGER, PALLISSERIKKAL L.P.SCHOOL
STATE OF KERALA
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
P. BHAVADASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
