MANAGER Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the Manager of an aided School, aggrieved by Ext.P6 letter of District Educational Officer, Palakkad issued on 21.06.2016 addressed to the 3rd respondent, informing that he is a claimant under Rule 51B in petitioner's School. The case of the Manager is that on the basis of that letter as well as the report called for, the appointments of the respondents 4 to 6 as LPSA made in the School with effect from 01.06.2015, were rejected as per Exts.P8, P9 and P10. By Ext.P6 letter, the DEO informed the 3rd respondent that he is entitled to claim under Rule 51 B for appointment under the Dying in Harness Scheme in petitioner's school. Ext.P6 letter is seen issued on the basis of a complaint submitted by the 3rd respondent and on the basis of a report submitted by the Assistant Education Officer, Parali on 22.01.2016 which says that no application from the 3rd respondent seeking employment under the Dying in Harness Scheme, is available with the records of the Manager or in the School. However, the AEO reported that 3rd respondent had submitted application for appointment as Peon/Clerk on the basis of his qualification at the relevant time.

(2.) Petitioner's case is that the 3rd respondent's mother late Susheela died on 26.08.2005, while she was working as UPSA in petitioner's school. Petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent had attained majority at the time of his mother's death. The 3rd respondent's father is working as the Manager of a nationalized Bank. At the time of her death, her daughter i.e., petitioner's sister was working as UPSA in the School. She tendered resignation on 12.08.2010. It is the definite case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has not put forward any claim for appointment under the Dying in Harness Scheme. For the first time, he submitted Ext.P2 application on 12.03.2014, to the AEO i.e., after a period of 9 years of death of his mother. The AEO forwarded that application to the petitioner which the petitioner received on 22.05.2014, along with Ext.P3 letter dated 09.05.2014 informing the petitioner that the application of 3rd respondent was received for compassionate employment. Petitioner submits that Ext.P4 letter dated 12.03.2014 addressed to the Manager was also received by the petitioner-Manager, in which the 3rd respondent had stated that he had passed TTC course on 09.07.2013.

(3.) The Manager addressed the Assistant Educational Officer as per Ext.P5 letter dated 07.07.2015 pointing out that petitioner's mother had passed away as early as on 26.08.2005 and it was for the first time that the 3rd respondent raised his claim for appointment, that too through the Assistant Educational Officer, instead of submitting the same to the appointing authority. It was also pointed out that the applications should have been submitted within a period of two years from the death of the employee as provided in paragraph 19 of the G.O.(P). No.12/99/P&ARD dated 24.05.1999. Petitioner informed that there was no legal heirship certificate or income certificate and even the application he submitted was not complete. In the above circumstances, the petitioner rejected the application. Whileso, the petitioner appointed the respondents 4 and 5 as LPSAs and respondent No.6 as UPSA in the School on 1.6.2015. The AEO declined approval to all those 3 appointments, in the meanwhile, as per Exts.P8 to P10 orders issued on 2.5.2016 and 9.5.2016, mainly on the ground that there is a 51B claimant by name Sri. Prasanth (3rd respondent) which is pending in file No.B5/2850/DEO. It was thereafter that the DEO issued Ext.P6 letter No.B5/2850 dated 21.6.2016 to 3rd respondent informing him that he is eligible for claim under Rule 51B. The writ petition was filed in the above circumstances.