Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh held that the remarriage of a widow does not take away her statutory right to be considered for appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959. The Court clarified that compassionate appointment under this provision constitutes a vested statutory right that cannot be negated by executive guidelines applicable to government servants. The dispute concerned a dependent seeking appointment in an aided school following the death of the employee, which the school refused citing her remarriage and alleged procedural defects. The Court set aside the manager’s order and directed that she be appointed to the existing or next arising vacancy in the school.

The petitioner is the widow of a deceased High School Assistant (Social Studies) who served in the 5th respondent school. Her husband died on 17.08.2017 while in service. She submitted an application on 18.12.2017 seeking compassionate appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules. The manager informed her that no suitable vacancy was then available. The petitioner later remarried on 16.09.2018. She asserted that she remained dependent at the time of her husband’s death and that her subsequent remarriage did not affect her statutory eligibility. A vacancy of Office Attendant arose on 31.03.2024, following which she again sought appointment. The petitioner produced certificates including the legal heir certificate and income certificate. The 2nd respondent issued a communication stating that remarriage was not a bar to compassionate appointment.

Also Read: ‘Ridge acts as the green lungs of the city’: Supreme Court Directs Centre To Reconstitute Ridge Management Board As Statutory Body Under Environment (Protection) Act

The 5th respondent manager issued a letter declining appointment, citing remarriage, non-submission of the prescribed form, and absence of a dependency certificate. The petitioner challenged this communication. She argued that Rule 51B creates a statutory right and relied on decisions interpreting dependency and prescribed forms.

The 4th respondent stated that the petitioner became a Rule 51B claimant upon her husband’s death and that another appointment made against the vacancy was kept in abeyance pursuant to an interim order. The 5th respondent contended that the petitioner lost her eligibility due to remarriage and relied on government orders applicable mutatis mutandis, asserting also that compassionate employment cannot be granted long after the employee’s death and that norms applicable on the date of consideration should prevail.

The dispute arose from the manager’s refusal to consider the petitioner’s statutory claim under Rule 51B. The statutory provision invoked was Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER, which requires managers to give employment to dependents of aided school teachers dying in harness.

The court stated that the petitioner submitted her application on 18.12.2017 and “there was no vacancy suitable to appoint the petitioner when the application was submitted.” It recorded that when the vacancy of Office Attendant arose on 31.03.2024, the manager took the stand that she was “not eligible for compassionate appointment as she got remarried.”

The court observed that the contention regarding non-submission of the prescribed form was “untenable,” referring to the Supreme Court decision holding that “an application for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground that the application was not in the prescribed form.”

The judgment recorded that the petitioner’s claim arises from Rule 51B and that “as far as staff of Government Aided Schools are concerned, compassionate appointment to dependents of deceased Aided School employees, is a valuable statutory right.” It stated that Rule 51B makes it “amply clear… that grant of employment to dependent of an Aided School Teacher dying in harness is a mandatory statutory requirement.”

The court noted that the petitioner’s husband was not a government employee and therefore the principles applicable to government employees do not govern the nature of the right. It observed that the petitioner remarried only because “in the prevailing Society, a widow cannot lead a peaceful life without a male support, especially when there is an aged mother to look after.”

Also Read: Accused Can Rebut Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act By Questioning Complainant’s Financial Capacity; Kerala High Court Upholds Acquittal In Cheque Dishonour Appeal

It stated that “a remarriage in such circumstances cannot take away the statutory right vested with the petitioner” and that applying government orders in a way that would defeat Rule 51B “cannot be applied in a manner to defeat the very conferment of right.” The court recorded that denial of the benefit “would be a travesty of justice.”

The Court stated that “the writ petition is therefore allowed. Ext.P6 order is set aside. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner in the existing or next arising vacancy in the School.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri. C.P. Peethambaran, Smt. Karthika Peethambaran, Smt. Neeraja Venugopal, Sri. Arjun J. Das, Smt. Divya Varghese

For the Respondents: Sri. Murali Pallath; Smt. Anima M., Government Pleader

Case Title: Mini R.K. v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:85653
Case Number: WP(C) No.3451/2025
Bench: Justice N. Nagaresh