Balakrishnan vs Secretary to Government

J.B. Koshy, J.—Appellant/petitioner, Manager of an aided school appointed one Laya a Hindi teacher on a vacancy that arose on 20.9.1999. The fifth respondent is a Rule 51A claimant as she has earlier approved service in the Management and later she was retrenched. Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules reads as follows:

"51A. Qualified teachers who are relieved as per Rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same Educational Agency or an Educational Agency to which the school may be subsequently transferred provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency".

It has been repeatedly held by this Court that when there are 51A claimants they shall be appointed as 51A is a superior claim. Approval of the candidate appointed by the Manager was declined by the educational authorities. Government also did not accept the same in revision. The learned Judge also affirmed the orders of the educational authorities and the order passed by the Government, Exts.P4, P5, P7.

The contention of the appellant is that when the vacancy arose on 20.9.1999, the fifth respondent was over aged. It is not disputed that maximum age limit is prescribed under the Kerala Education Rules and it is applicable to Government Schools as well as aided schools. The fifth respondent was not over aged at the time of her first appointment. She was a retrenched teacher in view of Rule 51A. This matter was correctly considered by this Court in C.V. Annamma Vs. State of Kerala and Others . There is no question of fixation of any upper age limit at all to retrenched teachers. Age limit has to be considered at the time of first appointment. Thereafter, her right under Rule 51A cannot be denied on the question of age limit. The vacancy of a Hindi teacher will arise in a private school rarely because there is only one post of Hindi teacher. If 51A claimants are denied appointment on the basis of age limit nobody will be absorbed under Rule 51A. In spite of the specific direction of the educational authorities the appellant/petitioner refused to employ fifth respondent. It is true that when she was out of employment, to avoid starvation she has done some job like agency of Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojna. This will not prevent her from getting the due benefits denied to her. It is now submitted that fifth respondent has now reached the age of superannuation. But the benefit she ought to have received cannot be denied illegally. It is submitted that she reached the age of superannuation and Government Order in her favour was stayed by this Court. But no person shall suffer due to the act of the Court. Exts. P4, P5 and P7 are affirmed by the learned Single Judge correctly. Government is directed to see that full justice is done to fifth respondent.

The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly.