Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Note 2. Manager should issue an order of appointment to the teacher by Registered post acknowledgement due and give a period of 14 (fourteen) clear days to the teachers to join duty. If the teacher does not join duty in time the Manager should give a further notice to the teacher stating that another person would be appointed instead and that the preferential right under this rule would be forfeited if not exercised within another 7 (seven) clear days. If nothing is heard during that time also, the preferential right under this rule will be regarded as forfeited."

If the teacher does not join duty in time the Manager should give a further notice to the teacher staling that another person would be appointed instead and that the preferential right under this rule would be forfeited if not exercised within another 7 (seven) clear days. If nothing is heard during that time also, the preferential right under the rule will be regarded as forfeited."

It can be seen that the claim for preference under Rule 51A is available only to qualified teachers who are relieved as per Rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies.

56. The next question is regarding the nature of the right under Rule 51A. Notes 1 and 2 under Rule 51A show that the teacher who is entitled to have preference for appointment to future vacancies need not even make an application to the Manager claiming appointment in a future vacancy. As and when a vacancy arises in future, the Manager is bound to issue an appointment order to the teacher by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due giving aperiod of 14 clear days to him to join duty. If the teacher does not join duty in time, the Manager should give a further notice to the teacher stating that another person would be appointed instead and that the preferential right under Rule 51A would be, forfeited if not exercised within another 7 clear days. Only if nothing is heard during that time also, the preferential right under the rule can be regarded as forfeited. It is significant that the expression used at both the places in Note 2 under Rule 51A is "preferential right" and not mere preference. It is also significant that Note 1 under Rule 51A stipulates even the order of preference when there are more than one claimant under Rule 51A. This is sufficiently indicative of the legislative intention to confer a right for appointment in a future vacancy and not a more preference while being considered along with other candidates. It should be noted there is no rule which stipulates that the Manager of a private aided school should advertise the vacancies inviting applications from candidates. A selection based on competition or assessment of relative merit is not contemplated under the K.E.R. The Manager of a private aided school is free to appoint any candidate who possesses the prescribed qualification if there is no other person having a right for preference for appointment to the vacancy.

71. Learned Chief Justice while examining the scope of Rule 51-A has opined that Rule 51-A speaks of only preference and not reservation and a liberal construction of Rule 51-A would attract criticism of it being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On a reading of Rule 51-A in its entirety, in my view, what the rule making authority has envisaged, is not a mere preferential treatment for appointment of those qualified teachers who are relieved as per Rule 49 or Rule 52 or on account of termination of vacancy but actually rule of reservation. Note 1 to Rule 51-A states that if there are more than one claimant under Rule 51-A the order of preference shall be according to the date of first appointment. If the date of first appointments is the same then preference shall be decided with reference to age, the older being given first preference. In making such appointment due regard should be given to the requirement of subjects and to the instructions issued by the Director under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 1. Note 2, which was introduced by G.O.(P)55/77/G.Edn dated 23.3.1977 and published in the Government gazette dated 26.4.1977 obliges the Manager to issue order of appointment to the teacher by registered post acknowledgment due and give a period of fourteen clear days to the teacher to join duty. If the teacher does not join duty the Manager should give further notice to the teacher stating that another person would be appointed instead and that the preferential right under the rule would be forfeited if not exercised within another seven days. If nothing is heard during that time also, preferential right under the rule will be regarded as forfeited. The expression "preference" used in Rule 51-A is not in the ordinary sense like priority or a favoured treatment or a weightage. Qualified teacher who is relieved under Rule 49 or under Rule 52 or on account of termination of vacancy is not expected to compete with others from open market. Such a situation has not been envisaged by the rule making authority when Rule 51-A was enacted or when Notes 1 & 2 were introduced to Rule 51-A. In my view, Rule 51-A read along with Notes 1 and 2 confers qualified teachers who are relieved as per Rule 49 or Rule 52 or on account of termination of vacancy a statutory legal right to claim appointment in future vacancies in the school under the same educational agency or an educational agency to which school was subsequently transferred provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency. This legal position has been well settled by a catena of decisions of this court, such as Gopalakrishnan Nair v. D.E.O. (1988 (1) KLT 644), Hymavathy v. Addl. Secretary, (1988 (2) KLT 71), Sobhana v. Manager Cholapurath A.U.P.S (1997 (2) KLJ 700), State v. Elsy (1987 (2) KLT 882), Mary George v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 912), Anilkumar v. Beena (2000 (1) KLT 286) and Usha Ratnam v. State of Kerala (2001 (3) KLT 161), with which I concur.