The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging a Single Judge's order quashing an appointment in favour of a Rule 51-B claimant, holding that a Rule 51-A claimant cannot relinquish their claim by letter and that the Deputy Director and Government erred in relying on such a letter.
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
FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931
W.A. No. 83 of 2008
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2826/2004
APPELLANT(S): 4TH RESPONDENT:
R. SREELATHA, W/O. GOPINATHAN, NJALIKKAL HOUSE, AYAPARAMBU P.O., HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.S. KRISHNA PILLAI
RESPONDENT(S): WRIT PETITIONER AND R1 TO 3:
R1 BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M. CHERIAN R2 AND R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU.
R4 BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANKARAN THAMPI
& SRI.BIJI MATHEW
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
W.A. No.83 of 2008
Dated this, the 16th day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The fourth respondent in the Writ Petition challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge in this appeal. The writ petitioner was a Rule 51-A claimant for the post of Full Time Menial which arose in the school of the fourth respondent herein. The appellant was a claimant under Rule 51-B. It is settled position in law that claim under Rule 51-A will prevail
over the claim under Rule 51-B. But, the Deputy Director of Education and the Government held in favour of the appellant by relying on a relinquishment letter, Ext.P3, issued by the first respondent/writ petitioner. It is settled position in law that there is no provision for relinquishment of a claim under Rule 51-A, by issuing a relinquishment letter. The right under Rule 51-A of Chapter XIVA, K.E.R., will be forfeited if the
claimant does not join duty on an appointment order being issued by the Manager and thereafter another registered letter
W.A. No.83 of 2008
is sent to him alerting that someone else would be appointed if
the claimant does not join duty within seven days. If the Manager follows the above procedure, and even thereafter the
first respondent does not join duty, then only his claim under Rule 51-A will be lost. In view of the above position, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge as per which the order of the Deputy Director and the Government have been quashed, for overlooking the claim of the first respondent, relying on Ext.P3 relinquishment letter.
The Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and it is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge.
Sd/- P. Bhavadasan, Judge.
DK.
(True copy)
2 issues framed by the court
Does a Rule 51-A claimant forfeit their claim by issuing a relinquishment letter?
Does the Deputy Director and Government have discretion to accept a relinquishment letter in favour of a Rule 51-B claimant?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R. SREELATHA, W/O. GOPINATHAN
ARAVINDAKSHAN G., S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
STATE OF KERALA
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA
MANAGER, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NADUVATTOM P.O
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
P. BHAVADASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
