SAJEESH BABU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's father was a teacher in Perambra Higher Secondary School, an aided school managed by the 2nd respondent. His father died in the year 1991. The petitioner possessed S.S.L.C. and is therefore fully qualified to be appointed as a clerk or in any post in the last grade or as Laboratory Attendant in the school. A vacancy in a post in the last grade arose on 31-3-95 consequent on retirement of one Sri. Madhava Kurup. Invoking the rights under R.51B Chap.14A K.E.R. the petitioner, sufficiently earlier than the date of occurrence of the vacancy applied to the 2nd respondent, claiming appointment to that vacancy. The petitioner was asked to submit an application in the form prescribed which the petitioner did. Inspite of that the 2nd respondent, issued Ext P3 notification inviting application to the post including that of the class IV and Laboratory Attender. The petitioner was replied in Ext. P4 that the employees of private school do not have the benefit of the scheme for employment assistance to the dependants of those died in harness. The petitioner appraised his grievances before the District Educational Officer, Vadakkara, the 1st respondent. There was no action. So, he has approached this court challenging Ext. P4 and seeking a direction to appoint him to the post of Peon/Lab Assistant in terms of R.51B Chap.14A K.E.R. R.51B Chap.14A K.E.R. reads:

(2.) This rule, like the one in R.51A Chap.14A K.E.R., creates a right in the incumbent concerned. It also creates a corresponding liability on the Manager that he 'shall give employment to a dependent of an aided school teacher dying in harness'. Thus, the Manager cannot avoid this statutory liability. Communication to the petitioner as contained in Ext. P4 letter that G.O.(P) No. 7/95/P & ARD dated 30-3-95 supersede all previous orders, is not correct. The said government order is only an executive order and that too concerning a scheme involved by the Government for employment assistance to the dependants of government employees died in harness. That is not a statutory claim. But, R.51B is a statutory provision which cannot be superseded by any executive order. There was no amendment to the rules taking away R.5IB. Therefore, the rights available under R.51B has to be honoured and the liabilities arising out, of the said rule shall be discharged. So, there is a liability on the Manager to give employment to a dependant of an aided school teacher dying in harness. The Manager cannot dispute and shirk away his liabilities and avoid the liabilities arising out of that statutory provision

(3.) That the petitioner's father was a teacher under the 2nd respondent, is not disputed. It is also not disputed that his father died in harness. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is qualified for the post of Peon/Lab Attender. There is also no dispute that the petitioner is the son of deceased teacher Raghava Marar. There is no other claimant. That is why the vacancies are notified for direct recruitment Thus, when there is a vacancy and when the petitioner is a dependent of a teacher died in harness, and when the petitioner is qualified, the Manager is liable to give employment to the petitioner as applied for by him.