ARATHI S Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the daughter of V.N.Ramachandran Nair, who died in harness on 10.5.1994 while working as HSA in VHSS, Mannady, Kottarakkara. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was a minor and a student. THE petitioner's sister was also aged only 3 = years. THE petitioner became major on 31.5.2003 and she says that she is qualified to be appointed as HSA in a vacancy which arose in the school on 1.4.2010.

(2.) THE Manager appointed the 6th respondent on 2.6.2008. THE 6th respondent is a Rule 51A claimant. She was working in the school for the period from 8.10.2003 to 11.12.2003. THE petitioner has no case that the 6th respondent should not have been appointed, she being a Rule 51A Claimant. THE grievance of the petitioner is that the Manager has not appointed the petitioner recognizing her claim under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER. Pointing out these aspects, the mother of the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation to the Director of Public Instruction. THE petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 application before the Manager for appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A KER. THE petitioner also submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 7.6.2007 before the Manager requesting to appoint the petitioner under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A KER.

(3.) EXT.P6 representation is pending before the Director of Public Instruction. The proper authority to look into the grievance of the petitioner is the District Educational Officer. The petitioner would be entitled to put forward the grievances of not appointing her under the dying- in-harness scheme before the District Educational Officer. The District Educational Officer could even issue direction to the Manager to appoint a Rule 51B Claimant. The District Educational Officer is the authority to approve the appointment of the teacher. If the Manager does not obey the direction issued by the District Educational Officer, appropriate action can be taken. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the claim of the petitioner on the merits in this Writ Petition, since it was not considered by the Educational Officer in the first instance. The petitioner is permitted to make a detailed representation before the District Educational Officer, who shall consider such representation and issue appropriate directions to the Manager, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Manager as well. If the petitioner is entitled to get appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER, appropriate directions can be issued by the Educational Officer and the Manager shall comply with such directions if any. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the District Educational Officer within a period of one month from today. On receipt of such representation, the District Educational Officer shall consider the grievance put forward by the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the Manager, shall issue appropriate directions in the matter. If the District Educational Officer comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to get appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER, the District Educational Officer shall issue specific direction to the Manager to appoint the petitioner. The Manager shall comply with the direction issued by the District Educational Officer without fail.