Judgment :- Sankarasubban, J. This Writ Appeal is failed against the judgment in O.P.No.6240 of 1998. First appellant is the Manager of St.Thomas High School, Malayattoor. Second appellant is a person, who applied for appointment in the School under the Dying in Harness Scheme. The second respondent is a person, who has also applied for a post under the dying in Harness Scheme. The facts of the case are as follows: 2. A vacancy of clerk arose in the St.Thomas High School on 31.1.1998. Second petitioner/second appellant and second respondent submitted applications for appointment under the Dying in Harness Scheme. The second respondent's father was a Teacher in the School, who passed away on 17.3.1987. The second appellant's mother was a Teacher in St.Mary's L.P.School, Malayattoor, who passed away on 21.7.1991. Both the schools are under the management of the first appellant. Claims for appointment of second appellant and the second respondent were recognisied by the management and consequently, both of them were called for interview. The Interview Board decided to appoint the second appellant in the vacancy of Clerk, which arose in the School on 31.1.1998. 3. Aggrieved by the above, the second respondent filed a complaint before the District Educational Officer. Since no action has been taken by the District Educational Officer, the second respondent approached this Court. This Court directed the District Educational Officer to consider and pass appropriate orders on the complaint of the second respondent, in accordance with law. The District Educational Officer passed Ext.P4 order dated 18.3.1998 and took the view that the second respondent, having the prescribed qualification of S.S.L.C. for the post of Clerk under Rule 2 (1) of Chapter XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules, is a better claimant under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules for the post of clerk which arose on 31.1.1998, due to retirement of a Clerk. The management was therefore directed to take appropriate action to give appointment to the rightful claimant. Thereafter the parties approached this Court. The learned single Judge dismissed the Original Petition. It is against that the present Writ Appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in this case, the management has rightly chosen the second appellant as his family's financial condition was very bad due to the death of his mother. Thereafter the parties approached this Court. The learned single Judge dismissed the Original Petition. It is against that the present Writ Appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in this case, the management has rightly chosen the second appellant as his family's financial condition was very bad due to the death of his mother. He submitted that so far as the second respondent is concerned, he is very well to do and he has got his own building. He submitted that the learned single Judge was not correct in holding that under Rule 51B of the Kerala Education Rules, it is not necessary for the management to look into the Scheme. Rule 51B of the Kerala Education Rules states as follows: "The Manager shall give employment to a dependent of an aided school teacher dying in harness. Government orders relating to employment assistance to the dependents of Government servants dying in harness shall mutates mutandis, apply in the matter of such appointments". Thus, it is not a blanket power that is given to the management. The management has to chose the right person according to the situation. The object with which the Dying in Harness Scheme is implemented is to help the family of deceased employed who died in harness to tie over the situation created by the death of the employee. Here, the second appellant's mother was died in 1991 and the second respondent's father was died in 1987. 5. We went through the records in the case. It is stated in the appeal that the second appellant's family condition was very poor. In this case, both the persons applied only in 1998. The fact that the second respondent's father died in 1987 doest not mean that preference should be given to him. Hence, we find that the second respondent's appointment is illegal. 6. Hence we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and direct the Manager to take fresh decision in accordance with the Scheme laid down by the Kerala Government. Writ Appeal is allowed.