JUDGMENT : V.G. ARUN, J. 1. Writ Appeal No.890 of 2019 arises out of W.P.(C) No.41013 of 2017, filed by the Manager of the Thachinganadam Higher Secondary School. W.A.No.1015 of 2019 arises out of W.P.(C) No.31221 of 2018 filed by three teachers; Suneer K.P, Renu P.P and Deepa P, appointed as HSA (Maths) in the School on 23.6.2014, 13.10.2014 and 28.10.2016 respectively. In W.P.(c) No. 41013 of 2017, the Manager challenged Ext.P13 order by which the Government upheld Rule 51B claim of Hema V. Nair; the 5th respondent therein, and directed to appoint her in the next arising vacancy of HSA (Maths). The Government further directed to approve the appointment of Rajasree S.Varrier, who was appointed as HSA (Maths) immediately before Suneer K.P; the first petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31221 of 2018. In W.P.(C) No.31221 of 2018, the teachers challenged Ext.P8 Order by which the Government rejected the request for approval of their appointments, on the premise that their approval would depend upon the outcome of W.P.(C) No.41013 of 2017. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed both writ petitions and directed the Manager to appoint Hema V.Nair in the next arising vacancy of HSA (Maths). 2. At the outset, we take note of the fact that the Manager as well as the teachers have filed only one writ appeal against the common judgment in two writ petitions. In spite of this fatal defect, we decided to consider the writ appeals on merit since approval of appointment of the teachers is at stake. 3. The facts necessary for rendering a decision on merits are narrated hereunder, with reference to the Exhibits in W.P(c) No. 41013 of 2017: 4. Viswanathan Nair; father of Hema V. Nair, died in harness on 5.11.1983 while working as HSA (Maths) in the School. Since Hema V. Nair was aged only 9 years at that time, her date of birth being 21.10.1974, and since Rule 51B was introduced in the KER only on 30.3.1990, no claim for compassionate appointment could be preferred by her at that point of time. Hema V. Nair obtained B.Ed Degree in April, 1998 and raised a claim for compassionate appointment as HSA, by preferring an application on 9.11.1998. Her claim for compassionate appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA was rejected by the District Educational Officer (DEO) on the ground that the claim was belated. Hema V. Nair obtained B.Ed Degree in April, 1998 and raised a claim for compassionate appointment as HSA, by preferring an application on 9.11.1998. Her claim for compassionate appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA was rejected by the District Educational Officer (DEO) on the ground that the claim was belated. The DEO observed that since the Government order which was prevalent at the time of submission of application for compassionate appointment was G.O.(P) No.34/87/P&ARD dated 17.12.1987, wherein the time limit for application was prescribed as two years from the date of death of the Government servant and, in the case of minors,three years from the date of attaining majority, Hema V. Nair ought to have filed the application on or before 21.10.1995. Hema V.Nair having attained majority on 21.10.1992 and that the first application filed only on 9.11.1998, it was held that the claim lacks legal validity and the Manager is not bound to appoint Hema V.Nair in his School as HSA (Maths) under Rule 51B. Hema V. Nair challenged the rejection before the Government in revision and the Government, as per Ext.P2 order, upheld her claim, finding that the relevant Rule was G.O.(P) No.12/99/P&ARD dated 24.5.1999, which prescribed a time limit of three years from attaining majority for submission of application for compassionate appointment. The Government took note of the fact that even though the claimant had attained majority on 21.10.1992 and had to submit the application within 21.10.1995, Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA was stayed immediately after its introduction on 30.3.1990 and continued to be stayed till 16.1.1997. It was therefore held that the application submitted by Hema V.Nair on 9.11.1998 could be treated to have been filed within time. Hence, the DEO, who was then officiating as Manager of the School, was directed to take immediate steps to honour the application dated 9.11.1998 submitted by Hema V.Nair. Ext.P2 was challenged by three teachers, Sreerej Nath G., Ameen Althaf K. and Rajasree S.Varrier, appointed as HSA (Maths) in the vacancies which had arisen on 16.7.2007 and 17.7.2007 respectively. 5. By Ext.P3 judgment, the learned Single Judge set aside Ext.P2 Government order and relegated the matter to the Government to consider the application preferred by Hema V.Nair in the backdrop of the law prevalent at the time of receipt of the application, provided the application was actually received. 5. By Ext.P3 judgment, the learned Single Judge set aside Ext.P2 Government order and relegated the matter to the Government to consider the application preferred by Hema V.Nair in the backdrop of the law prevalent at the time of receipt of the application, provided the application was actually received. It was held that if no time limit was prescribed under any of the Government Orders that held the field during the relevant time, the Government would have to apply Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of KER and if on the other hand, the Government orders prescribed a time limit, within which the application for compassionate appointment was to be filed, then the application of Hema V.Nair should be considered in the light of the said provision by interpreting the period specified in the Government order as forming an integral part of Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER. 6. Based on the directions contained in Ext.P3, the Government considered the claim for compassionate appointment of Hema V.Nair and by Ext.P13, found that she had actually submitted her application on 9.11.1998 and that, the Government order which governed the field at the time of consideration of the application was G.O.(P) No.7/95/P&ARD dated 30.3.1995, wherein no time limit was prescribed for the submission of the application, except that the application should be filed before expiry of the upper age prescribed for appointment to the post. Hence, the claim of Hema V.Nair was upheld and the Manager was directed to appoint her in the next arising vacancy of HSA (Maths). 7. The Manager challenged Ext.P13 on the ground that only claims which had arisen after 30.3.1990; the date on which Rule 51B was incorporated in Chapter XIVA was liable to be considered and that Viswanathan Nair; father of Hema V. Nair having expired on 5.11.1983; her claim cannot be considered to be one under Rule 51B. The other ground of challenge is that Hema V. Nair having attained majority on 21.10.1992, she ought to have filed application for compassionate appointment on or before 21.10.1995; ie, within three years of attaining majority, as prescribed under G.O. (P) 12/99/P&ARD dated 24.5.1999. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Deepak v. Secretary, General Education Department [ILR 2002 (2) Ker. The other ground of challenge is that Hema V. Nair having attained majority on 21.10.1992, she ought to have filed application for compassionate appointment on or before 21.10.1995; ie, within three years of attaining majority, as prescribed under G.O. (P) 12/99/P&ARD dated 24.5.1999. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Deepak v. Secretary, General Education Department [ILR 2002 (2) Ker. 513], Sukumaran Nair v. State of Kerala and others [ILR 2004 (3) Kerl.401] and Manager, Naduvathur U.P.School and another v. Bijeesh K and others [ 2019 (3) KHC 472 (DB)], in support of the contention that inordinate delay in submitting application would defeat the right to claim compassionate appointment. 8. Heard Sri.T.T.Muhamood, learned counsel for the Manager, Sri.R.Santhosh Babu, learned counsel for the compassionate applicant and Sri.A.J.Varghese, the learned Senior Government Pleader. 9. In view of the finding in Ext.P3 judgment that consideration of the application for compassionate appointment should be in accordance with the Government orders which held the field at the time of consideration, the moot question is as to which Government order was in vogue at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment. As far as the contention that the application itself was not submitted on 9.11.1998, the Government having categorically found the application to have been filed on 9.11.1998 and Hema V.Nair having produced the postal acknowledgement pertaining to her application signed by the then Manager of the School as Ext.R5 (a), we have no hesitation to repel the challenge. It is an admitted fact that there was a change in Management and the present Manager who came into the picture cannot merely assert and deny the receipt of the application; when the postal acknowledgement establishes the receipt. 10. In order to find out the Government order that was in prevalence at the relevant point of time, it would be appropriate to consider the context in which Rule 51B was introduced, stayed and the stay later vacated. As far as the Government employees in the State are concerned, the Government had, as per G.O.(MS) No.20/70/PD dated 21.1.1970, introduced a scheme to provide employment assistance to the dependants of those employees who die in harness. This Government order underwent several amendments over a period of time. Even then a similar provision was not introduced in the KER, which led to a demand in that regard from the aided school employees. This Government order underwent several amendments over a period of time. Even then a similar provision was not introduced in the KER, which led to a demand in that regard from the aided school employees. Heeding to the demand, the Government, as per G.O.(P) No.55/90 G.Edn 30.3.1990, incorporated Rule 51B in Chapter XIVA and Rule 9A in Chapter XXIVA of KER, providing for employment to dependents of aided school teachers and non-teaching staff dying in harness. On introduction of Rule 51B and Rule 9A, the Managers of the aided institutions and their association raised objections and relenting to their pressure, the Government, vide order dated 3.4.1990, decided not to implement the Rules. This Court, in its judgment in O.P.No.664 of 1995, took note of this anomalous situation and directed to provide some mandatory provision in the KER to the effect that the Managers shall not have any option but to appoint the dependants of teaching staff or non-teaching staff who die in harness, provided the applicant is qualified to be appointed on the basis of the norms laid down by the Government in the matter relating to the appointment of the Government employees dying in harness. Later, in W.A.No.1207 of 1996, this Court directed the Government to clarify as to which scheme is applicable to the dependants of an aided school teacher dying in harness. In the face of repeated directions issued by this Court, the Government was forced to issue G.O.(MS) No.15/1997/G.Edn dated 16.1.1997, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:- “(i) The stay ordered against the operation of Rule 51B Chapter XIVA, KER will stand vacated with immediate effect. “(ii) The Managers of Aided Schools shall give employment to dependants of Aided School teachers/non teaching staff of aided schools dying in harness. The Government orders relating to the compassionate employment scheme as applicable to the dependants of Government servants dying in harness shall, mutatis mutandis, be followed in the aided schools. (iii) The claim of the incumbents under the scheme shall be applicable against the existing and arising vacancies. (iv) If the Manager fails to carry out his obligations, the Educational Officers shall have power to deny approval of such appointments which are made against Rule 51B Chapter XIVA and rule 9A Chapter XXIV A KER.” 11. In the meanwhile, the Government had issued G.O.(P)No.7/95/P&ARD dated 30.3.1995 to regulate appointments under the Compassionate Employment Scheme. (iv) If the Manager fails to carry out his obligations, the Educational Officers shall have power to deny approval of such appointments which are made against Rule 51B Chapter XIVA and rule 9A Chapter XXIV A KER.” 11. In the meanwhile, the Government had issued G.O.(P)No.7/95/P&ARD dated 30.3.1995 to regulate appointments under the Compassionate Employment Scheme. As per Paragraph 9 of G.O.(P) No.7/95/P&ARD, the Scheme therein was not applicable to the employees of aided schools and private colleges. While lifting the stay of implementation of Rule 51B as per G.O.(MS) 15/97/G.Edn, the Government took note of Paragraph 9 of G.O.(P) No.7/95 and observed as follows:- “7. .......According to the amendments made in the KER (Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA and Rule 9A of Chapter XXIV A of KER), Government orders relating to employment assistance to the dependents of the Government servants in dying in harness shall, mutatis mutandis apply in the matter of such appointments in aided schools. Para 9 of G.O.(P) No.7/95/P&ARD dated 30.3.1995 is therefore contradictory to the statutory provisions contained in Rule 51B, Chapter IXV A and Rule 9A of Chapter XXIV A KER and requires review.” 12. Accordingly, as per Paragraph 9 of G.O.(MS) 15/97/G.Edn, the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department was directed to issue necessary orders deleting the words “aided schools and” from para 9 of G.O.(P) No.7/95/P&ARD and thereby make it applicable for aided schools also. As per paragraph 18 of G.O. (P) No.7/95/P&ARD, no time limit was prescribed for preferring applications under the scheme and dependants could apply for the benefit of the scheme at any time, but within the upper age limit prescribed for direct recruitment to the post requested for by him/her. Hence, the Government order which held the field when Hema V. Nair's application was originally received by the Manager was G.O.(P)No.7/95/P&ARD dated 30.3.1995, wherein no time limit was prescribed for submitting the application. Therefore, as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, the finding of the Government in that regard is unassailable. 13. As far as the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the dictum laid down in those decisions are to be considered in the backdrop of the legal position that the right to compassionate appointment under Rule 51B is a statutory right. 13. As far as the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the dictum laid down in those decisions are to be considered in the backdrop of the legal position that the right to compassionate appointment under Rule 51B is a statutory right. In Deepak's case (supra), the application for compassionate appointment was filed after 21 years of the death of the mother of the claimant and it is in that context that this Court held that the date of death and date of application must have some proximity. In Sukumaran Nair, the teacher of a school died in harness on 7.4.1989. The claim for compassionate appointment was raised on 19.5.1993. The Division Bench took note of the fact that Rule 51B was introduced in the KER on 30.3.1990 and that even though the Rule does not prescribe any time limit within which the claimant has to apply seeking compassionate appointment, in the subsequent Government orders dated 10.4.1992, a time limit has been prescribed, which is two years from the date of death or three years from the date on which the claimant attained majority. It was then held that since the claimant had approached the Manager for compassionate appointment after more than four years, the claim could not be entertained in terms of Rule 51B read with the relevant Government order. Evidently, the Division Bench was not made aware of the fact that the implementation of Rule 51B had been stayed by the Government. Moreover, we have already found that as far as the instant case is concerned, the Government order ie, G.O.(P) 7/95/P&ARD dated 30.3.1995, in force at the relevant time, did not prescribe any time limit for filing the application. In Manager, Naduvathur U.P.School (supra), the death of the employee in harness was on 20.8.1991, the claimant attained majority on 25.5.1997 and the application under Rule 9A of Chapter XXIVA was found to have been filed only on 8.11.2011. The relevant Government order therein was G.O.(P) No.12/99/E&ARD dated 24.5.1999, which provided a time limit of three years from attaining majority for submitting application. It was hence, held by us that the application for compassionate appointment filed 14 years after the claimant became major, was liable to be rejected. Hence, the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant were rendered on different set of facts and hence, not applicable. 14. It was hence, held by us that the application for compassionate appointment filed 14 years after the claimant became major, was liable to be rejected. Hence, the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant were rendered on different set of facts and hence, not applicable. 14. The contention that Vishwananthan Nair having died prior to the introduction of Rule 51B in the KER, the application for compassionate appointment submitted by his daughter Hema V. Nair could not have been entertained, is also unsustainable for the reason that the rule itself having been incorporated for a beneficial purpose, it cannot be given such a restricted interpretation. The question as to whether Rule 51B is applicable to claims based on the death of an employee, prior to introduction of the rule was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Manager, Parli High School v. Narayanan [ 2002 (3) KLT 912 ]. After considering the provision, it was held that even though Rule 51B operates only prospectively, the fact that the death of the employee occurred before the introduction of the rule does not disentitle the dependants from claiming appointment under that Rule. It was held that if the occurrence of vacancy is on or after the coming into force of Rule 51B, the fact that the employee died before such commencement is immaterial. In S.N.G.S High School v. Reji Sagar [ 2008 (1) KLT 1026 ], another Division Bench held as follows:- “7. The relevant Rule governing the right of the dependent of a non-teaching staff who died in harness, to get appointment, is R.9A of Chap.XXIV A, K.E.R. The said Rule reads as follows: “9A. The manager shall give employment to a dependent of the non-teaching staff of an aided school dying in harness. Government orders relating to employment assistance to the dependents of Government servants dying in harness shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in the matter of such appointment.” (Emphasis supplied) The words of R.9A are identical to R.51B of Chap.XIVA, K.E.R. The said Rule reads as follows: “51B. The Manager shall give employment to a dependent of an aided school teacher dying in harness. 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 mutatis mutandis, apply in the matter of such appointments.” (Emphasis supplied) We notice that the right of the dependent of a teaching staff or a non-teaching staff, who died in harness, is a statutory right. It is not a concession granted to the dependents. Whenever there is a vacancy, the Manager has to make the appointment. So, he should alert the dependents of the deceased employee regarding the occurrence of the vacancy, so that any one among them who is qualified, can apply for the post. If there is any defect in the application, the Manager has to give the applicant time to rectify the mistake and thereafter, he should appoint him. The general principles stated by the courts concerning the appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme in Government service have no application here. A vacant post in the Government will have to be filled up by inviting applications and giving every one a chance to apply, in accordance with the Rules governing appointment to such posts. The mandate of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India compels to follow the above course. The appointment of the dependent of an employee, who died in harness is an ex caption to the above rule and is a concession granted by the Government. The said right should be exercised, subject to the mandate of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. But, if a vacancy arises in an aided school, no advertisement is made and no selection is made from among the best candidates, who apply pursuant to the advertisement. The Manager appoints a per son of his choice. So, the principles laid down by the courts relating to appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme in public services cannot be mechanically imported or applied to the appointments under R. 51B or R.9A in an aided school.” 15. Therefore, the statutory right under Rule 51B cannot be denied on the ground that the employee had died prior to introduction of the rule. The right cannot be denied on the ground of delay in filing the application also, unless and until the relevant Government order prescribes a time limit for submitting the application and the application was submitted beyond time. 16. The right cannot be denied on the ground of delay in filing the application also, unless and until the relevant Government order prescribes a time limit for submitting the application and the application was submitted beyond time. 16. The only other question to be considered is regarding the claim for approval of appointment raised by the appellants in W.A.No.1015 of 2019. Ext.P13 order, finally determining the compassionate claim of Hema V.Nair in her favour, was issued on 23.11.2015, with a direction to appoint Hema V.Nair in the next arising vacancy of HSA (Maths). Among the appellants, Suneer K.P was appointed on 23.6.2014, Renu P.P on 13.10.2014 and Deepa P on 28.10.2016. The appointments of Suneer K.P and Renu P.P, which were prior to Ext.P13, are liable to be approved. But, Deepa P. having been appointed to a vacancy which had arisen after Ext.P13, the rejection of her approval is justified, since Hema V.Nair ought to have been appointed to that vacancy. In the result, W.A.No.890 of 2019 is dismissed. W.A.No.1015 of 2019 is allowed in part, directing the official respondents to approve the appointment of the first and second appellants therein and finding that the appointment of the third appellant to be improper. No order as to costs.