Kerala High Court
Melvin Mathew vs Deputy Director Of Education on 7 June, 2024
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 12489 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
MELVIN MATHEW,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. LATE MATHEW M. VARGHESE, KADHALIKKANDATHIL,
KUNNATHERI, THAIKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-
683106.
BY ADVS.
A.RAJASIMHAN
SMT.P.USHAKUMARI
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KOTTAPPADI, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM-676505.
2 DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-679101.
3 MANAGER,
MMMHSS, KUTTAYI, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676562.
BY ADVS.
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C)No.12489 of 2020
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 7th day of June, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the son of late Mathew M.
Varghese, who was an HSST (Physics) in MMMHSS, Kuttayi,
Tirur, Malappuram. Mathew M. Varghese died on
21.08.2008, while in service.
2. On 17.11.2008, mother of the petitioner,
Smt.Celine Mathew, submitted Ext.P1 application before
the 3rd respondent Manager under Rule 51B of Chapter
XIVA of the Kerala Educational Rules, 1959 seeking
appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. She had
also forwarded a copy of the application to the Deputy
Director of Education - the 1st respondent herein.
3. As per Ext.P2, the 1st respondent recognised
the entitlement for compassionate appointment and
directed to approach the Manager with a proper
application. Thereupon, the petitioner's mother
submitted Ext.P3 application on 11.01.2009 before the
Manager. A copy of the application was forwarded to the
Regional Deputy Director.
4. According to the petitioner, as suggested by
the 3rd respondent, the petitioner was required to
submit an application for compassionate appointment in
the place of his mother on the premise that, it will be
for the better interests of the family. Accordingly the
petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application on 17.07.2009.
In Ext.P5 application, the earlier application submitted
by the mother was specifically referred to. According to
the petitioner, the application was kept aside by the
Manager, without consideration, for his own reasons.
5. There was mismanagement of the school at the
hands of the Manager and the Manager was removed. As per
the orders of this Court in W.A.No.1517 of 2018, the
District Educational Officer, Tirur was directed to act
as the temporary Manager. Thereupon, the petitioner
approached the 2nd respondent-District Educational
Officer, with the request of appointment. As per Ext.P6,
the 2nd respondent required submission of the
application in a proper format along with the relevant
documents. The petitioner, as per Ext.P7, replied
pointing out that the application in the proper format
was submitted to the Manger earlier, pursuant to the
directions by the Deputy Director in Ext.P2. A copy of
Ext.P2 communication and the application were made
available to the 2nd respondent along with Ext.P7.
6. While so, W.A.No.1517 of 2018 was disposed of
by this Court permitting the 3 rd respondent to continue
as the Manager. Thereupon, the District Educational
Officer issued Ext.P8 communication to the petitioner,
requiring the petitioner's application to be given to
the 3rd respondent-Manager directly. Ext.P5 application
was earlier submitted to the Manager. Anyway, as was
required by the 2nd respondent, a copy of the
application was given to the 3 rd respondent. It is in
the above circumstances that the petitioner has
approached this Court. He seeks for expeditious
consideration of his application filed for appointment
in terms of Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of the KER.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for
respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the 3 rd
respondent.
8. The petitioner's father died on 21.08.2008.
Immediately thereafter, on 17.11.2008, the mother had
filed an application seeking compassionate appointment
under Rule 51B KER. Subsequently, on 17.07.2009,
referring to the application submitted by the mother,
the petitioner submitted application for appointment in
the said place. As noted supra, according to the
petitioner, the Manager was keeping away from appointing
him by one reason or the other. As it is evident from
the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent, there
were allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation
against the 3rd respondent-Manager, and he was removed
from the said post. During the period 2018-20, the 2 nd
respondent was acting as the temporary Manager. During
the said period, the petitioner was required to submit
the application before the 2 nd respondent. Pursuant to
such direction, he submitted the copy of the application
along with an earlier communication. Thereafter, this
Court as per the judgment in W.A.No.1517 of 2018,
permitted the 3rd respondent to continue as the Manager.
Thereupon, the educational authorities required the
petitioner to submit the application before the 3 rd
respondent.
9. Evidently, as it is claimed by the petitioner,
he is being driven from pillar to post. The application
submitted by him for compassionate appointment (Ext.P5)
is liable to be considered by the 3 rd respondent without
any further delay. Respondents 1 and 2 are to ensure
such consideration of the application by the 3 rd
respondent.
Resultantly, without expressing anything on the
merits, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
3rd respondent to consider P5 application submitted by
the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall
be afforded an opportunity of hearing, before orders are
passed. Respondents 1 and 2 shall ensure compliance with
the direction above.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
yd
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12489/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER'S
APPLICATION DATED 17/11/2008 FOR
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/11/2008
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER'S MOTHER ON 11/01/2009.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
12/01/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S
MOTHER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER ON 17/07/2009.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/10/2019
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPLY
LETTER SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ON 01/06/2020.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08/06/2020
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
