YADHU KRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since a common issue is involved in both these writ petitions, they were heard and disposed of by a common judgment. W.P.(C) No.9268 of 2022

(2.) The 5th respondent, the Manager of an aided school appointed the petitioner herein as Full Time Menial in the promotion vacancy of one Smt.G.S.Ambily as per Ext.P1. When the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner was forwarded, the same was rejected by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P2 for the reason that the 6th respondent who is having a 51B claim has not been given appointment. Aggrieved by the same the Manager preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The father of the 6th respondent, late K.A.Vijayan, who was working as Physical Education Teacher in the School, died in harness on 29/2/1996. However, his children did not submit an application within time. The 1st respondent has specified time limit of 2 years from the date of death to submit the application and in case of minors, application has to be made within 3 years from the date of attaining majority. The 6th respondent did not submit any application within the prescribed time limit. In fact Ext.P3 application was submitted by the 6th respondent only on 18/12/2017. The 6th respondent had approached the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and the said Commission by Ext.P4 order directed respondents 2 and 3 to consider the application of the 6th respondent sympathetically. Based on Ext.P4, the 4th respondent directed the 5th respondent Manager as per Ext.P5 to consider the application submitted by the 6th respondent, which was rejected as per Ext.P6 order. However, by Ext.P7 order the 4th respondent directed the 5th respondent to appoint the 6th respondent in the first vacancy as per the qualification. Later, the 4 th respondent by Ext.P8 again issued a direction to appoint the 6th respondent in the existing vacancy. The petitioner, the 5th respondent Manager and one Sri. Yadhukrishnan A. (the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7941 of 2022) who was appointed as Clerk, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.21734/2019. While so, the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner as Clerk was rejected by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P9 order. Thereupon the above said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext. P10 judgment relegating the petitioner to file an appeal against Ext.P9 order. Ext.P11 appeal was preferred, which was rejected by Ext.P12 order. In Ext.P12 the 3rd respondent entered into a finding that the dependents of late Vijayan had submitted applications for compassionate employment during various periods and the same was not considered by the Manager and therefore, the claim of the 6th respondent under Rule 51B KER is sustainable. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed appeal before the 2 nd respondent. The said appeal was reject by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P13. Aggrieved by Ext.P13, Ext.P14 revision petition was preferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent and the said revision petition was rejected as per Ext.P16. It is aggrieved by the same that the above writ petition has been filed. W.P.(C)No.7941 of 2022

(3.) The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk by the 5th respondent in the retirement vacancy of one K.G.Vipin, the vacancy which arose on 22/5/2019 as per Ext.P1. The approval of appointment was refused by the 4th respondent DEO for the reason that the 6th respondent - a 51B claimant was not appointed in spite of the direction issued by the Human Rights Commission in this regard. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, the issue was considered by the 3rd respondent and by Ext.P5 the request for approval of appointment of the petitioner was rejected and held that the 6th respondent is entitled for appointment as he is 51B claimant. An appeal was preferred as Ext.P6 and the same was rejected as per Ext.P7 order. Ext.P8 is the copy of the application submitted by the 6th respondent for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme dtd. 18/12/2017 for the post of full time menial and the present vacancy is that of the Clerk. The petitioner would contend that the 6 th respondent cannot take a claim to the said post. It is aggrieved by the rejection as per Ext.P7 that the above writ petition has been filed.