DEEPAK Vs. SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petitioner is the appellant. Writ Petition was preferred challenging Ext. P2 order dated 15.7.1999 by which District Educational Officer disposed of the petitioners application for compassionate appointment in the S.N.V. Sanskrit Higher Secondary School. Ext. P2 order was happened to be passed by the District Educational Officer on a direction given by this Court in O.P. No. 3592 of 1999 filed by the writ petitioner. Claim for compassionate appointment was considered by the District Educational Officer and the same was rejected holding that the writ petitioner has no legal right to compassionate appointment under R.51B of Chapter XIV - A of the Kerala Education Rules since the Rule has no retrospective effect. Learned Single Judge upheld the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same this Writ Appeal has been preferred.

(2.) Writ petitioners mother, who was a teacher in the S.N.V. Sanskrit High School, died in harness on 7.2.1978. On 5.1.1999 writ petitioner submitted an application before the Manager of the school for appointment under dying in harness scheme in accordance with R.51B of Chapter XIV - A. Application was considered by the District Educational Officer with notice to the Writ Petitioner as well as the Manager of the school. The District Educational Officer noticed that the writ petitioner is seeking employment as Lab Assistant or Peon in the Higher Secondary School on the basis of R.51B of Chapter XIV - A which came into force on 30.3.1990. District Educational Officer rejected the application presumably on the ground that the said rule has no retrospective effect.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay submitted that the District Educational Officer has committed a grave error in rejecting the application of the appellant on the ground that the death occurred prior to the coming into force of R.51B of Chapter XIV - A. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Narayanan v. State of Kerala ( 1998 (2) KLT 446 ) counsel contended that there is nothing to show that an application under the dying in harness scheme could be entertained only if death occurred after the coming into force of R.51B. Counsel submitted that the expression dying in harness seems to have used in R.51B in order to give benefit to the dependants of persons who died in harness, whether the death occurred prior to or subsequent to the introduction of R.51 B of Chapter XIV - A. Counsel submitted that in any view, appellants application should have been entertained and the question as to whether he is entitled to get the benefit of R.51B should have been decided by the District Educational Officer on merits.