Preferential appointment right under Rule 51A survives unless forfeiture follows the mandatory procedure in Note 2.

Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules gives an approved teacher a preferential right to appointment, and Note 2 lays down the exclusive procedure by which that right can be lost. That procedure requires notice by registered post, time to join duty, a further warning notice, and forfeiture only if the teacher still does not exercise the right within the prescribed period. Because a rule that prescribes a specific manner for forfeiture must be followed in that manner alone, a voluntary relinquishment letter cannot by itself extinguish the preferential right. The forfeiture of the right is therefore effective only if it complies strictly with Note 2.

---

---

Issues: Whether a teacher's preferential right to appointment under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules can be forfeited or relinquished otherwise than by the procedure prescribed in Note 2 to Rule 51A.

Analysis: Rule 51A confers a preferential right of appointment on an approved teacher who had earlier worked in the school, and Note 2 prescribes the exclusive method by which that right can be lost. The prescribed safeguards require notice by registered post, time to join duty, a further notice warning of substitution, and only then forfeiture if the teacher does not exercise the right within the stated period. The procedure is intended to prevent malpractice and is grounded in public policy. Where a statute or rule requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone. A voluntary relinquishment letter, even if assumed to exist, cannot bypass the mandatory procedure laid down in Note 2. Any forfeiture of the right must therefore be strictly in accordance with that note.

Conclusion: The procedure in Note 2 to Rule 51A is mandatory, and relinquishment letters do not by themselves extinguish the preferential right to appointment under Rule 51A.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the claimed forfeiture of the preferential appointment right was not brought about in the manner required by the governing rule, and the order in favour of the teacher was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statutory rule prescribes a specific procedure for forfeiture of a preferential right, that procedure is exclusive and any attempted waiver or relinquishment outside it is ineffective.

---