K.S Radhakrishnan, J.:— This appeal is preferred by the Manager of a L.P School, aggrieved by the judgment in O.P No. 31294 of 1999. Writ Petition was preferred by the Manager challenging the orders passed by the educational authorities directing the Manager to appoint Smt. M. Pravida, sixth respondent, L.P.S.A with effect from 7.6.1994

2. Sixth respondent was appointed as L.P.S.A during the period 1.7.1992 to 28.9.1992 That appointment was approved; by the fifth respondent, Assistant Educational Officer, as per order dated 31.8.1992 On 20.11.1997 a permanent vacancy arose in the school. Sixth respondent submitted that even though regular vacancy arose Manager did not take steps to appoint her. Consequently she filed complaint before the Assistant Educational Officer on 30.7.1998 She also filed complaint before the District Educational Officer Kannur and the same was forwarded by the District Educational Officer to Assistant Educational Officer, Taliparamaba. Assistant Educational Officer gave personal hearing to all the parties on 10.9.1998 Sixth respondent and Manager appeared before the Assistant Educational Officer on the said date. Enquiry revealed that vacancy of L.P.S.A arose for the period from 7.6.1994 to 30.11.1994, 6.9.1996 to 4.12.1996, 13.1.1997 to 21.3.1997 and 2.6.1997 to 29.8.1997 and again permanent vacancy on 20.11.1997 Before the Assistant Educational Officer Manager submitted that appointment order was issued to sixth respondent on 19.11.1997 but due to health reasons she relinquished the said appointment by writing on the reverse side of the appointment order in the presence of witnesses. The Manager took up the stand that under such circumstances she could not be appointed. Assistant Educational Officer did not accept the contention of the Manager and found that the Manager has not complied with the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules and also the Circular issued by the Director of Public Instruction dated 6.1.1997 Assistant Educational Officer passed an order on 24.9.1998 directing the Manager to appoint sixth respondent within seven days of receipt of the said order. Manager did not take any action on the basis of the said order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer. Consequently Assistant Educational Officer issued a notice dated 2.11.1998 to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against the Manager as per R. 7 Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules. Manager aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer filed revision before the Government. Government issued notice to all the affected parties on 5.7.1999 Government found that Manager failed to comply with Note 2 to R. 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules and has illegally denied appointment to sixth respondent who is a R. 51-A claimant. Government declared that sixth respondent is entitled to get appointment from 7.6.1994 onwards notionally with all service benefits including seniority, subject to condition that pay and allowances will be paid only with effect from the date from which she joins duty in the school. It was also made clear that if there is any delay to give appointment order to sixth respondent she would be paid pay and allowances from the date of the Government order and the amount so paid would be recovered from the Manager. In spite of that Manager did not take any steps to give appointment to sixth respondent and filed the Writ Petition which was dismissed by the learned single Judge against which the present appeal has been filed.

3. We heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Govindh K. Bharathan and counsel for sixth respondent Sr. M.C Narabiar and also learned Government Pleader Sri. C.K Pavithran.

4. It is not in dispute that sixth respondent was appointed in the school for a period from 1.7.1992 to 28.9.1992 and the said appointment was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer dated 31.8.1992 Subsequently she was thrown out of service due to fall of division. R. 52 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules says that teachers who are relieved on account of any reduction in the number of posts under orders of the department shall on reappointment in the same school or in another school under the same management or a different management start on the same pay as they were getting at the time of relief, whether the new appointment is permanent or not. Since sixth respondent was appointed and the period during which she worked had been approved, admittedly she is entitled to get reappointment under R. 51-A of Chapter XIV-A of K.E.R

5. The above mentioned legal position is not disputed by either side. But the stand of the Manager is that even though sixth respondent, a R. 51-A claimant she has lost her right for re-appointment under R. 51-A since she has relinquished her right when order of appointment was made to her on 19.11.1997 Manager submitted on the same day on the reverse side of the appointment order sixth respondent in her own handwriting relinquished her claim for appointment in the presence of witnesses. She is therefore not entitled to get the benefit of R. 51-A. Manager submitted that claim under R. 51 -A is available to those persons who were relieved as per R.49 or R.52 or on account of termination of vacancies. Since sixth respondent has relinquished her claim, she does not satisfy the requirement of R. 49 or R. 52. It is his contention that sixth respondent was aware of the vacancies which arose on various occasions. However she has not made any claim for appointment. When offer of appointment was made also she was not willing to accept the same. It is under such circumstances counsel submitted that Manager could not comply with Note 2 to R. 51-A of Chapter XIV-A of K.E.R Counsel also made reference to the decision of a learned single Judge of this court in Manager, MUUPS, v. A.E.O (1998 (2) KLJ 871). It is his contention that the principle laid down by the learned single Judge is the correct interpretation of R. 51-A of Chapter XIV-A of K.E.R and therefore the decision of this court in Lakshmikutty Amma v. Vijayalakshmikutty reported in 1992 (2) KLT 341 requires reconsideration.

6. Counsel for sixth respondent on the other hand submitted that the Manager is bound to comply with the statutory requirement of Note 2 to R. 51-A of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R As per Note 2 to R. 51 - A Manager is bound to issue appointment order to the teacher by Registered post acknowledgment due and give a period of fourteen clear days to the teacher to join duty. Various procedures laid down in the said Note were not complied with by the Manager. Counsel also contended that in spite of the fact that vacancy arose in the school on various occasions; namely 7.6.1994 to 30.11.1994, 6.0.1996 to 4.12.1996, 13.1.1997 to 21.3.1997 and 2.6.1997 to 29.8.1997 the Manager did not take any steps to issue appointment order to sixth respondent. Sixth respondent also denied the alleged execution of the relinquishment letter or that the Manager had made an offer of appointment. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Pathumma v. State Of Kerala (1986 KLT 166) and also the decision in Vijayalakshmikutty v. State of Kerala 1991 (2) KLT Short Notes 11 Page 9.

7. We are of the view that the question raised in this case is no more res integra. This court in Lakshmikutty Atnma's case (1992 (2) KLT 341) elaborately considered the scope of Note II to R. 51-A and reminded Managers of schools the necessity of complying with the said procedure which the court has held as mandatory. This court took the view that R. 51-A and the Note thereunder are clearly based on public policy so as to defeat malpractices in employment in various aided schools. This Court held:

“The procedure contained in Note 2 to R. 51-A is mandatory and that there cannot be forfeiture of right accrued under R. 51 -A in any manner otherwise than by the procedure provided by Note 2 and that consequently the relinquishment letters even if executed voluntarily by the teacher relinquishing his or her right under R. 51-A cannot result in the forfeiture of the preferential right to appointment. R. 51 -A and Note 2 thereunder are based upon public policy and they are intended to prevent malpractices.”

8. With regard to Note 2 to R. 51-A the Court held as follows:-

“The Note contemplates that initially the Manager should issue an order of appointment to the teacher concerned by Registered Post acknowledgment due and give 14 clear days to the teacher to join duty. If the teacher did not join duty in time; the Manager is bound to give a further notice to the teacher stating that another person would be appointed instead and that the preferential right under R. 51-A would be forfeited if not exercised within seven clear days. If nothing is heard during that time also, the preferential right under the Rule will be regarded as forfeited. In other words, Note 2 requires two registered notices to be issued as stated above, and under the second notice, the Manager has to give the option to the teacher to exercise the preferential right within seven clear days. It is only when such an option is not exercised by the teacher, her or his preferential right would be forfeited. It is now well settled that if a statute prescribes that an act has to be done in a particular manner, that act can be done only in that manner, and in no other manner. If a statute gives a power to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.”

9. We cannot also accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant that learned single Judge has taken a different view in the aforementioned case. That was a case where the teacher absented himself from duty while she was in service. Therefore learned Judge said there was no question of termination of service arises under R.49 Consequently she lost her claim under R. 51-A. However, learned single Judge has also took the view that petitioner therein was not qualified to hold the post. In such circumstance the claim for reappointment under R. 51-A was negatived. In such circumstances we find no reason to take a different view from that of Lakshmikutty Amma's case, (supra).

10. We may also point out that Manager is bound to comply with R.51-A of Chapter XIV-A as and when vacancy arises subsequent to the relief of a teacher under R.49 or R.52 Teacher gets the right to preferential appointment under R.51-A and as and when the vacancy arises Manager is bound to comply with the procedure under R.51-A. Manager cannot deny the statutory claim under R.51-A on the plea that the teacher had submitted a relinquishment letter to the Manager.

11. We are of the view when court gives an interpretation to a particular provision, the Government and the Manager of aided schools are bound to follow the interpretation. Nobody can ignore the court's interpretation of a rule on the plea that they were not parties to the judgment. The request of the appellant to consider the judgment of the Division Bench in Lakshmikutty Amma's case lacks bona fide. This is only an attempt to over-reach the principle laid down by the Division Bench. We may also indicate even in case where there is a genuine letter of relinquishment of a claim under R. 51-A, Manager is bound to follow the procedure laid down in the Circular No. ET3/87201/96 dated 6.1.1997 and to get approval of the department for relinquishment of right under R. 51-A. The department accordingly laid down the following procedure in the case where relinquishment letter is submitted by teachers. We may extract the relevant portion for easy reference.

“1) whenever the Manager intends to appoint or promote a person other than the senior claimant, the Manager shall obtain a written consent in advance from such senior claimant renouncing his/her claim either permanently or temporarily.

2) In the case of temporary relinquishments the period of relinquishment should necessarily be furnished in the relinquishment letter.

3) Such relinquishment letters accepted by the appointing authority shall have the approval of Educational Officer concerned (A.E.O in the case of Primary and D.E.O in the case of Secondary).

4) Employees shall not be allowed to withdraw the relinquishment of their claim once accepted and approved by the Controlling Officer.

5) While making appointments/promotions of juniors on the strength of relinquishment letters of rightful claimants, the letters renouncing the claim duly accepted by the appointing authority and approved by the Controlling Officers should invariably be sent along with the proposals for approval of appointments.

12. Manager has no case that he has complied with the above procedure laid down by the Director of Public Instruction. In other words, Manager has not complied with Note 2 to R. 51-A of Chapter XIV-A of K.E.R as well as the Circular issued by the Director of Public Instruction on 6.1.1997 We also notice from the facts stated above that four vacancies arose prior to 20.11.1997 Manager has no case that he had offered appointment to sixth respondent and he has no case that sixth respondent had relinquished the claim for appointment in those vacancies. Manager's case is that sixth respondent is residing nearby the school and is therefore aware of the vacancies.

13. We are of the view untenable contentions are being raised to get over the statutory procedure and the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the Circular issued by the Department. In this case we notice that teacher was kept out of service for number or years without following the statutory procedure and contrary to the principles laid down by this Court. In such circumstances we are inclined to dismiss this appeal with costs of Rs. 2,500/- to be paid to sixth respondent. Government in the order dated 11.1.1999 have stated that if there was any delay on the part of the manager to give appointment order to the sixth respondent she would be paid pay and allowances from the date of the Government order and the amount so paid would be recovered from the Manager. We make it clear that direction given by the Government would stand. Manager would comply with the judgment within a period of two weeks from today; failing which department will take appropriate disciplinary proceedings. The appeal is dismissed as above.