Madras High Court
G.Neethipathi vs The Director Of School Education on 18 August, 2021
W.P(MD)No.6387 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.6387 of 2019
and W.M.P.(MD)No.5093 of 2019
G.Neethipathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of School Education,
DPI Complex,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Complex,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Chief Educational Office,
Thanjavur.
4.The District Educational Officer,
District Elementary Educational Office,
Pattukottai, Thanjavur.
5.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Sethupavasathiram Union,
At Kuruvikarambai,
Thanjavur District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.P(MD)No.6387 of 2019
calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.
12027/A1/2014, dated 28.11.2014 passed by the 4th respondent and
quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the
petitioner's application dated 30.07.2014 for compassionate appointment
together with his representation dated 01.07.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sekar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel,
Standing Counsel for Govt.
ORDER
The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of
certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 28.11.2014, passed by
the fourth respondent and to direct the respondents to consider the
petitioner's application dated 30.07.2014 for compassionate appointment
together with his representation dated 01.07.2015.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his father was working as
Headmaster at Panchayat Union School, Puthupattinam,
Sethupavachathiram Union, Thanjavur District and he died on
16.05.2006, while he was in service. On 30.01.2009, the petitioner's
brother viz., Sakkaravarthi made an application to the respondent,
seeking compassionate appointment, enclosing all necessary documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.6387 of 2019
While the same is pending, the petitioner has submitted an application on
30.07.2014, to the fifth respondent seeking compassionate appointment.
However, the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that
there is no provision for giving compassionate appointment to the
alternative legal heirs. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition
has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner's brother viz., Sakkaravarthi has submitted the
application, seeking compassionate appointment within the three years
period and due to the bona fide reasons, the petitioner has submitted an
application on 30.07.2014, seeking compassionate appointment to him.
The petitioner's brother also submitted a representation dated 30.07.2014
to the fourth respondent, requesting to provide compassionate
appointment to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is
unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for Government appearing for the
respondents submitted that there was no evidence available on record to
show that the petitioner's brother has submitted an application on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.6387 of 2019
30.01.2009. In respect of the petitioner's application, seeking
compassionate appointment is concerned, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent has relied on a judgment of this Court in W.A.No.
1480 of 2018 [S.Rajesh Vs. Managing Director], dated 25.07.2018 and
submits that following the decisions of the said judgment, this Writ
Petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused
the materials available on record.
6. Though the learned Standing Counsel for Government
appearing for the respondents submitted that there was no proof
available on record to show that the petitioner's brother has submitted an
application on 30.01.2009, in the typed set of papers it is seen that in the
copy of the petitioner's brother application viz., Sakkaravarthi, a stamp
seal has been endorsed by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Sethupavasathiram. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid
application is pending and no order has been passed on the said
application. However, the said Sakkravarthi has not approached this
Court, seeking to consider his application. The petitioner being the
younger brother of the said Sakkravarthi has filed the present Writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.6387 of 2019
Petition, seeking compassionate appointment for another legal heir. This
issue has been elaborately considered by the Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.No.1480 of 2018 [S.Rajesh Vs. Managing Director],
dated 25.07.2018, wherein this Court has held as follows:
“16. The learned single Judge has placed reliance on
number of other cases wherein it was held that claim for
compassionate appointment is traceable only to the scheme
framed by the employer and there is no right of what so ever
nature to claim compassionate appointment of any ground other
than those provide for under the scheme. Compassionate
appointment is not a vested right which can be claimed after
lapse of time much after the crisis is over. The continuation of
the indigency alone cannot be considered by the department
while examining the request of the applicant for appointment of
compassionate ground. In the present case, the petitioner could
not claim is right to appoint of compassionate ground years after
is father had passed away. Further the letter rejecting the claim
of the petitioner states that the respondents made a reference to
the Government seeking clarification as whether the
compassionate appointment could be considered to another legal
heir when a representation was already made by another legal
heir seeking compassionate appointment is pending. The
Government clarified that there was not possible. Appointment
on compassionate ground can be made only in accordance with
the scheme. The order of single Judge does not warrant any
interference.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.6387 of 2019
7. In view of the aforesaid decision, this Court finds no reason to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent dated
28.11.2014. Accordingly, this Writ Petition fails and the same is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
18.08.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vsm
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.6387 of 2019
To
1.The Director of School Education,
DPI Complex,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Complex,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Chief Educational Office,
Thanjavur.
4.The District Educational Officer,
District Elementary Educational Office,
Pattukottai, Thanjavur.
5.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Sethupavasathiram Union,
At Kuruvikarambai,
Thanjavur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.6387 of 2019
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vsm
W.P(MD)No.6387 of 2019
18.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
