MARY Vs. A E O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner has approved service as a teacher in V. S. U. P. School , vellarakkad. That was during the period from 27. 1. 1984 to 5. 4. 1984 as revealed by Ext. P1. The school was transferred to the present Manager, the second respondent. THERE arose a short term vacancy in the very same category on 17. 1. 2000. That is also not disputed. Another teacher was appointed against that vacancy, which terminated on 30. 3. 2000. A permanent vacancy again arose in the very same school which is now under the management of the second respondent, on 5. 6. 2000. Third respondent is preferred to that post by the second respondent, Manager. The petitioner resisted that appointment raising her claim under R. 51a Chapter XIV A of KER. Her claim was upheld in Ext. P5 by the District Education Officer. The Manager filed an appeal before the District education Officer. Ext. P5 is reversed by Ext. P8 holding that the petitioner cannot have any claim under R. 51a to be honoured by the second respondent. THEREfore Ext. P8 is under challenge at the instance of the. petitioner.

(2.) IT is contended by the petitioner that Rule 51a was amended on 22. 6. 1998 with retrospective effect from 1. 1. 1985, to the effect that R. 51a claim would subsist even if the school has been transferred from one manager to another. Therefore, Ext. P8 is bad, he submits. IT is submitted by the respondents that the petitioner had such approved service before such amendment in the school which was transferred to th e second respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot have a claim for appointment against any future vacancy under R. 51 A. IT was further contended by them that when a short term vacancy arose on 19. 1. 2000 the petitioner, who is living in the neighbourhood of the school, had not put forth her claim for appointment. That vacancy was therefore, utilised to give appointment to the third respondent. Therefore, the petitioner's claim has been forfeited. IT is further contended that the petitioner had made a relinquishment letter duly witnessed by two members of the staff of the school and the then Assistant Educational Officer, Kunnamkulam. Therefore the claim if any, which had already been relinquished, cannot be raised further. Therefore, ext. P8 is perfectly in order.

(3.) THE Manager also does not have a case before me that the petitioner had been issued with appointment order or the notice as contemplated under Note 2, when a short term vacancy arose on 19. 1. 2000, to which the third respondent was preferred by the Manager. Any appointment made by the Manager without following the procedure made mention of under R. 2 of r. 51 A, will not result in a forfeiture of the claim of the petitioner. THE petitioner is not bound to enquire every day, coming to the door step of the manager, as to whether any vacancy had arisen in any of the schools under him. It is to avoid such situation that Note 2 had been introduced, making the Manager liable to issue appointment order to the claimant and a notice thereafter to the teacher to ensure that claim under R. 51a is honoured. THErefore the contention that the petitioner did not raise any claim in respect of temporary vacancy that had arisen on 19. 1. 2000 also does not have any merit.