CORPORATE MANAGER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment since the issues involved in them are closely interconnected.

(2.) THE primary question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner in W. P. No. 22172/2005 (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) is entitled to get appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme as contemplated under Rule 51b of Chapter XIVA, Kerala Education Rules in the school under the management of the petitioner in W. P. No. 21227/2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Manager ).

(3.) SRI P. T. Mathai, father of the claimant died-in-harness on October, 22, 1996 while he was working as Headmaster in one of the schools under the corporate educational agency. Shortly after the death, viz. , on December 11, 1996 , the widow of later Mathai submitted an application before the manager requesting for employment assistance to her minor son Julius Mathew on attainment of majority and acquisition of requisite qualifications. Later, in October 2001 she requested the management to give employment to her daughter (the claimant ). Still later, on July 29, 2002 the widow along with her son Julius Mathew sent Ext. P-3 communication to the Manager requesting that the claimant may be given employment instead of SRI Julius mathew. Ext. P-3 application was considered by the Manager and it was rejected on the ground that the claimant was not entitled to get the benefit of the scheme as envisaged under the relevant order of the Government and also under rule 51b. However the Deputy Director of Education reversed the said order and directed the Manager to treat the application as valid and give employment to the claimant. A copy of the order is on record as Ext. P-6. The Director of public Instruction and the Government confirmed the above order by Exts. P-9 and p-13 orders respectively. The Manager has challenged Ext. P-13 order in W. P. No. 21227/2005. He further prays for a declaration that Rule 51b of Chapter XIV aker is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) and 30 (1) of the Constitution of and that the said rule cannot be made applicable to the minority institutions.