9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal involves the correct interpretation and the scope and effect of Rule 51(A) of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. The Rule reads as follows: 51-A. Qualified teachers who are relieved as per Rules 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the same Education Agency, provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency. This Rule gives a teacher, discharged for want of vacancy or relieved as per Rule 49 or 52, a right to reappointment when a future vacancy comes into existence. It is usual for managers of schools to appoint teachers to leave vacancies. Sometimes more than on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a B.A., B .Ed. degree holder. She is fully qualified to be appointed as a teacher in any Government or aided school in the State of Kerala. She was appointed in a temporary vacancy in the school of the first respondent, from 13-1-1970 to 16-3-1970, in the academic year 1969-70. The appointment has to be approved by the District Educational Officer, the second respondent herein, which was duly done. Since the vacancy in which the petitioner was working ceased to exist. She went out of the job on 16-3-1970. A further vacancy arose on 22-8-1970 and it continued till 17-12-1970. She worked in this vacancy also. She went out of service when this vacancy ceased. Respondent No. 4 is another teacher who worked in the same school in another leav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointment in the future vacancies in the school and it did not restrict the right of the management to make his own choice among the thrown out teachers. The appellant pursued the matter by filing Writ Appeal 45 of 1972. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal agreeing with the learned Single Judge that the management had a discretion to choose among the thrown out teachers. Hence this appeal by special leave. Though long years have passed by since this dispute arose wherefore we would have normally declined interference with the Judgment under appeal, we think it necessary to lay down the law correctly to avoid injustice in cases like this and to prevent abuse of power of those in whom right is conferred under Rule 51(A). Now, both the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rule does not in terms, mandate that the one who worked earlier should be preferred to the one who worked later. But would it be in accord with justice and fair play, to prefer the one who worked later to the one who worked earlier? In the absence of anything in the Rule giving to the management a right to choose between the two, on the ground of suitability, merit or effeciency. The Judgment of the Division Bench under appeal was delivered on 18-1-1973. The note quoted above was inserted on 4-7-1972. This note leaves no doubt as to how Rule 51(A) has to be construed. The Rule states that preference will be given with reference to the date of appointment. When the date of appointment is the same, age should prevail; the eider being giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntical rule fell for consideration. The relevant portion of that Judgment was extracted by learned Judges. We also find it useful to extract it here: 5. Very recently, in Writ Appeal No. 44 of 1970, we had occasion to construe Rule 51- A. And we then observed that despite its unhappy wording, in particular, the use of the words, preference for appointment to mean right to appointment, we had little doubt that what the rule meant was that a person discharged for want of vacancy had a right to be appointed in future vacancies, provided, of course, he had not by word or deed given up that right or, we might now add, disqualified himself meanwhile. And we added that the present tense of the words, are relieved appearing in the rule wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chool when another vacancy arose earlier. At that time also the present appellant applied to the Manager, seeking appointment in the vacancy consequent on the retirement of a Head Master. The Manager declined the request and sent a reply to the appellant, the relevant portion of which, eloquent in favour of the appellant, reads as follows: Rule 51(A) Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. lays down that qualified teachers who are relieved on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointments to future vacancies. When two persons apply for a post by virtue of the concession laid down in Rule 51 A, it is the natural justice to select the persons who has earlier and longer period of previous service. Hence considering all the asp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
