Court’s decision
The Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the refusal of compassionate appointment to the Petitioner, a dependent of an aided school teacher who died while in service. The Court held that Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) creates a statutory mandate, not a discretionary privilege, and a dependent’s right to appointment under this provision cannot be defeated on the basis of remarriage. The Court found that the Manager’s rejection was legally untenable because it relied on executive instructions applicable to government servants, whereas aided school teachers are governed by a statutory regime.
The Court emphasised that Rule 51B requires the Manager to “give employment” to the dependent of an aided school teacher dying in harness, and therefore the right becomes vested upon the death of the employee. The Court held that government orders relating to dying-in-harness schemes may apply only mutatis mutandis and cannot override or dilute statutory rights. It further held that the Manager’s view that remarriage extinguished dependency contradicts judicial precedent and the statutory structure.
The Court relied on decisions including Nakeri Vasudevan Namboodiri (dependency is determined as on the date of death), Shreejith (application cannot be rejected for not using the prescribed form), and Santhosh N.C. (compassionate appointment for government servants is an executive scheme, unlike the statutory right under Rule 51B). The Court concluded that the Petitioner’s remarriage, undertaken due to social and personal circumstances, could not deprive her of a legally conferred right. The impugned order denying appointment was set aside, and the Respondents were directed to appoint the Petitioner against the current or next arising vacancy.
Facts
The Petitioner’s deceased husband was employed as a teacher in an aided school and died while in service. The Petitioner, who was fully dependent on the Deceased Husband, applied for compassionate appointment soon after his death. At that time, the Manager acknowledged the application but stated that no suitable vacancy existed for the Petitioner’s qualification.
The Petitioner had passed secondary school examinations and had no independent means of livelihood. After the death of the Deceased Husband, the Petitioner was required to care for her aged mother, and with no family support, she later remarried due to social pressures and security concerns. However, this remarriage resulted in the cessation of family pension.
When a vacancy for the post of Office Attendant arose in the school many years later, the Petitioner renewed her request for compassionate appointment. Despite clarification from higher authorities that remarriage is not a bar under Rule 51B, the Manager issued a rejection stating that the Petitioner was disqualified due to remarriage and that she had not submitted the application in the prescribed format.
Issues
The primary issue was whether the Petitioner’s remarriage could disqualify her from claiming compassionate appointment under Rule 51B. A second issue was whether the Manager could rely on government orders applicable to government servants to deny a statutory entitlement under KER. A further issue arose as to whether the absence of a prescribed format could be used to reject the application. The Court also considered whether Rule 51B creates a vested right or whether it depends on prevailing executive norms at the time of consideration.
Petitioner’s arguments
The Petitioner argued that Rule 51B creates a mandatory statutory obligation and that the Manager has no discretion to deny employment when dependency existed at the time of death. The Petitioner asserted that remarriage occurred only due to personal hardship, lack of support, and the need to maintain dignity and security. She contended that remarriage has no legal bearing on her dependency at the time of the Deceased Husband’s death.
The Petitioner relied on Shreejith, where the Supreme Court held that an application cannot be rejected for failure to use a prescribed form. The Petitioner also argued that the Manager’s reliance on government employee schemes was misplaced because compassionate appointment in aided schools arises from statute, not executive policy. She further argued that delay in filling vacancies cannot extinguish her statutory right.
Respondent’s arguments
The Respondent-Manager argued that the Petitioner lost eligibility due to remarriage, claiming that dependents must remain widowed to continue as beneficiaries. The Manager stated that the Petitioner had not provided certain documents and that her income certificate reflected her Remarried Spouse as guardian, suggesting changed dependency. The Manager also relied on government orders concerning dying-in-harness schemes, stating that remarriage disqualifies applicants.
The Respondent argued that decisions on compassionate appointment must consider the applicant’s current financial condition and that the social and economic support gained through remarriage negated the need for compassionate employment. The Respondent also claimed that appointments long after the employee’s death defeat the purpose of compassionate appointment.
Analysis of the law
The Court analysed Rule 51B and held that it creates a statutory imperative. Once an aided school teacher dies in harness, the dependent immediately acquires a vested right to compassionate appointment, subject only to suitability and availability of vacancy. The Court explained that Rule 51B must be interpreted purposively to protect dependents from destitution and ensure continuity of livelihood.
The Court distinguished between executive dying-in-harness schemes for government employees and statutory rights under Rule 51B. Executive instructions cannot negate statutory entitlements. The Court also observed that the language of the Rule makes no distinction based on later personal choices, including remarriage, nor does it condition eligibility on continuing dependency.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied on Nakeri Vasudevan Namboodiri to hold that dependency must be assessed as of the date of death. It cited Shreejith to reiterate that procedural lapses such as non-use of prescribed forms cannot defeat substantive rights. It referred to Santhosh N.C. to clarify that government servants’ compassionate appointments are based on executive policy, unlike the statutory rights of aided school dependents.
The Court also analysed Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., which emphasised that norms existing at the time of consideration apply, but held that its principle cannot override the statutory mandate of Rule 51B. The Court concluded that any government order that restricts eligibility cannot dilute a legislative right.
Court’s reasoning
The Court held that the Petitioner’s remarriage, undertaken after one year of her husband’s death due to social vulnerability and the need to care for her mother, cannot divest her of a vested statutory right. The Court observed that denying her appointment in such circumstances would amount to injustice. It concluded that government orders applicable to executive schemes cannot override Rule 51B.
The Court further reasoned that delay in vacancy availability is an institutional factor and cannot penalise the dependent. The Manager was therefore bound to appoint the Petitioner once a suitable vacancy arose.
Conclusion
The Court set aside the Manager’s rejection order and directed that the Petitioner be appointed to the existing or next arising vacancy in the school. It reaffirmed that compassionate appointment in aided schools is a statutory right and cannot be nullified by remarriage or by reliance on executive instructions inconsistent with Rule 51B.
Implications
This judgment significantly strengthens the rights of dependents of aided school teachers by clarifying that Rule 51B protections cannot be eroded by executive orders. It ensures that personal decisions such as remarriage do not extinguish statutory entitlements. The ruling also signals that delays in vacancy creation will not prejudice applications.
More broadly, the decision highlights the difference between statutory rights and executive schemes, reinforcing judicial protection of dependents under Rule 51B and preventing arbitrary denials by school managers.