RACHAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a full time menial working in the school of the 6th respondent. A vacancy of peon arose on 1.8.1996. The petitioner was entitled to be appointed on promotion under R.43 of Chap.14A of the KER read with Chap.24A of the KER. But the appointment of the petitioner as peon by the 6th respondent as per Ext. P1 was not approved by the 4th respondent as per Ext. P3 order. The matter was taken up in appeal before the third respondent which was also rejected as per Ext. P6 order. Ext. P7 is the order of the second respondent and Ext. P8 is the order of the first respondent confirming these orders.

(2.) The only question now to be decided in this case is as to whether the 7th respondent who claims appointment to the post of peon on the strength of R.9A of Chap.24A of the KER (dying in harness) is entitled to get preference over the petitioner who is a R.43 claimant. This Court has held in the ruling reported in Deepthy Susan Jacob v. State of Kerala 1996 (2) KLT 1033 that a claimant under R.51B of Chap.14A of the KER (similar to R.9A of Chap.24A of the KER) is entitled to get appointment only subject to the claimants under R.43 and 51A of Chap.14A of the KER. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this Original Petition.

(3.) But in Ext. P8 the Government seems to have relied on Ext. P9 interim order passed by the Division Bench. The Government is under a wrong impression that by Ext. P9, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was stayed. But a reading of Ext. P9 shows that when an appeal is filed, the Manager agreed that since there are two vacancies, the petitioner therein also would be considered along with other eligible candidates. Therefore, there is no stay of the operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Ext. P8. The ruling reported, to which reference was made earlier, still holds good, till it is reversed by a competent Court. Therefore I quash Exts. P2, P6, P7 and P8. The fourth respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner as a Peon pursuant to Ext. P1 order of appointment. This must be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that in case this Court upsets the ruling of the learned Single Judge, the 7th respondent is entitled to get the benefit of the above ruling.