FR ANTONY KAVALAKATT Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the management is justified in evaluating comparative merits of two applicants, who submitted applications for appointment under R.51B of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules, under the dying in harness scheme. The said provision is extracted below:

(2.) A vacancy of clerk arose in the St. Thomas High School on 31.1.1998. Second petitioner and second respondent submitted applications for appointment under the dying in harness scheme. Second respondent's father was a teacher in the school, who passed away on 17.3.1987. Second petitioner's mother was a teacher in the St. Mary's L.P. School, Malayattoor, who passed away on 21.7.1991. Both the schools are under the management of the first petitioner. Claim for appointment of second petitioner and second respondent was recognized by the management, and consequently, both of them were called for interview on 17.11.1997. Board of interview decided to appoint second petitioner in the vacancy of clerk which arose in the school on 31.1.1998. Aggrieved by the same, second respondent filed a complaint before the District Educational Officer. Since no action has been taken by the District Educational Officer second respondent approached this Court and filed O.P. No. 1958 of 1998, which was disposed of by this Court directing the District Educational Officer to pass appropriate orders on the complaint of the second respondent in accordance with law.

(3.) District Educational Officer passed Ext. P4 order dated 18.3.1998 and took the view that second respondent, having prescribed qualification of SSLC for the post of Clerk under R.2(1) of Chap.24A of the K.E.R. is a better claimant under R.51B of Chap.14A of the K.E.R. for the post of Clerk which arose on 31.1.98, due to retirement of a clerk. Management was therefore, directed to take appropriate action to give appointment to the rightful claimant Manager as well as the appointee have approached this Court challenging the order of the D.E.O.