9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of relinquishment or forfeiture of a right accrued under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules (K.E.R.) without following the procedure under Note 2 to Rule 51A. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of Relinquishment or Forfeiture under Rule 51A without Following Note 2 Procedure Background: The appeals concern the preferential right to appointment under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R. The key contention is whether relinquishment letters, allegedly signed by teachers, can be considered valid if the procedure outlined in Note 2 to Rule 51A was not followed. Facts of the Case: - The writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in a temporary vacancy and later in a leave vacancy, both appointments being approved. - When a subsequent vacancy arose, the manager did not appoint anyone, and later appointed the fifth respondent in another temporary vacancy. - The petitioner claimed her rights under Rule 51A were overlooked, as she was not notified as required by Note 2 to Rule 51A. - Her representation was initially rejected by the Assistant Educational Officer on grounds of relinquishment and over-age. - The Director of Public Instruction later allowed her revision, stating the relinquishment letters had no legal effect without following Note 2. - The Government, however, rejected her claim, considering the relinquishment voluntary. Legal Analysis: - Rule 51A and Note 2: Rule 51A provides a preferential right to appointment for teachers who had previously worked in a school. Note 2 mandates a specific procedure for relinquishment, requiring the manager to issue an appointment order by registered post with a 14-day notice and a subsequent 7-day notice if there is no response. - Public Policy: Rule 51A and Note 2 are based on public policy to prevent malpractices by school managers, ensuring fair employment practices. The Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Math Ganguly emphasized that public policy aims to prevent practices injurious to public good. - Mandatory Procedure: The court held that the procedure in Note 2 is mandatory. Relinquishment letters, even if voluntarily executed, cannot result in forfeiture of the preferential right unless the procedure is strictly followed. This principle aligns with the Supreme Court's stance in cases like Ramachandra v. Govind, where statutory procedures for surrendering rights were deemed mandatory. - Precedents: The court referenced several precedents, including Pathumma v. State of Kerala, which held that no teacher could forfeit their right under Rule 51A without following the prescribed procedure. The decisions in Punnen v. Vasudeva Kurup and Muralidar v. State of U.P. further support the view that rights under statutory provisions cannot be relinquished outside the prescribed procedures. Conclusion: The court concluded that the relinquishment letters, even if voluntarily signed, do not result in forfeiture of the preferential right under Rule 51A unless the procedure in Note 2 is followed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld, confirming that the writ petitioner had a preferential right to appointment in the permanent vacancy that arose on 31st March 1990. The appeals were dismissed, reinforcing the mandatory nature of the procedure under Note 2 to Rule 51A and its basis in public policy.
|
