VINAYARAJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals are by the manager of an aided school. The contesting respondent is the appellant's niece who was a teacher in that school, having worked in that capacity in a leave vacancy from 07/10/1998 to 07/12/1998. At that point of time, it was the appellant's mother who was the manager of the school. That spell brought home to the teacher a claim referable to Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of KER which gives preference as regards appointment to subsequent vacancies. Going by the materials on record by way of pleadings, including representations etc., it appears that the teacher got married and moved to Madhya Pradesh sometime in 1994-95 immediately after her spell of work against the leave vacancy. Thereafter, another leave vacancy arose on account of a teacher K. Sudharani availing maternity leave. The manager, on the premise that the teacher before us had relinquished her claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of KER, appointed yet another person against that vacancy. The teacher was not offered any other appointment as against any vacancies that arose thereafter. We see that there were some earlier writ petitions. Ultimately, the matter was before the statutory authorities and the decision was given in favour of the teacher directing the manager to appoint her in a particular vacancy. The manager challenged it by filing a writ petition. The teacher filed a writ petition seeking enforcement of the decision of the statutory authority. Those writ petitions were taken up by the [earned Single Judge and in the course of consideration of those writ petitions, the statutory authorities were required to look into the matter after hearing both the parties, at the level of the Deputy Director of Education. The parties were heard and detailed report was placed before this Court. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the materials, accepted the report and confirmed the decision of the statutory authority in favour of the teacher. The manager was directed to comply with those directions. Hence, these writ appeals by the manager.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant, referring to the decision of the learned Single Judge in Jaimy v. Dy. Director,1993 2 KerLT 275, argued that the quality of relinquishment under Rule 51A would affect on a permanent basis, even if such relinquishment is in relation to the offer of appointment towards a temporary vacancy. Relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Krishnakumar v. Kunhiraman, 2011 2 KerLT 457 it was argued that the relinquishment amounts to abandonment and extinguishment of right for ever.

(3.) The learned Single Judge relied on the judgment in Saramma v. D.E.O., Kothamangalam,1991 2 KerLT 883 which was rendered holding, among other things, that any distinction as to whether the post was permanent or temporary may not be decisive. We may note here that Krishnakumar was decided without noticing Saramma .