Madras High Court
The District Collector vs Sushma on 6 July, 2021
W.A.(MD) No.699 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.699 of 2020
and C.M.P.(MD)No.4161 of 2020
1.The District Collector,
Office of the District collector,
Pudukkottai District.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Office of the Chief Educational Officer,
Pudukkottai District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Office of the District Educational Officer,
Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.
4.The Block Educational Officer,
Office of the Block Educational Officer,
Karambakudi, Pudukkottai District. ...Appellants
-Vs-
Sushma ...Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the
order dated 28.02.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.25890 of 2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.A.(MD) No.699 of 2020
For Appellants : Mr.A.K.Manikkam,
Standing Counsel for Government.
For Respondents : Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan,
for Mr.B.Jameel Arasu.
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.,]
Heard Mr.A.K.Manikkam, learned Standing Counsel for the
Government appearing for the appellants and K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan, for
Mr.B.Jameel Arasu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent.
2. This Writ Appeal, by the District Collector and three others, is
directed against the order dated 28.02.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.25890 of
2019.
3. The said Writ Petition was filed by the respondent
herein,challenging the order passed by the second appellant dated
25.04.2019, in and by which, the request made by the respondent for
grant of appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the
ground that she has not completed 18 years of age on the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.699 of 2020
submission of the application for grant of appointment on compassionate
ground. The learned single Judge referred to a decision in the case of
M.Sathish Kumar Vs. the Director of School Education and others,
wherein reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in W.P.No.3050 of 2003. After referring to the said decision,
the Court held that the respondent cannot be faulted, as she has applied
within three years of attaining majority.
4. In our considered view, the said finding of the learned Single
Judge, would not be putting forth the correct legal position, since the
decision in the case of W.P.No.3050 of 2003 was a case pertaining to a
claim for compassionate appointment in the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board. Likewise, the other decision, which was referred to in Sushma
Gosain Vs. Union of India also pertaining to the applications made to the
Electricity Board. It cannot be disputed that at the relevant time, the
Electricity Board had a regularization, which framed application to be
submitted within a time frame, after attaining majority. However, there
is no such paramateria guidelines in the State Government service.
Therefore, the said decision does not render any support to the case of
the respondent. However, on facts, we find that the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.699 of 2020
Department by their own conduct are estopped from taking a different
stand and rejected the application taking a stand contrary to what was
taken by then consistently eversince the application was submitted
through her mother on 10.10.2014. Various communications received
from the appellants' Department viz., during November 2014, 17.12.2014
and 05.01.2017, all go to show that applications were entertained.
Added to that when the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.
(MD)No.24335 of 2018, which was disposed of on 19.02.2019, by
recording the communication given by the appellants' department in
Na.Ka.No.1730/A1/2018, dated 09.01.2019, the respondent was directed
to submit necessary documents. Therefore, the Court directed the
application to be considered on merits. Learned Writ Court taking note
of all the factual circumstances construed the matter to be an unique case
on facts and granted the relief. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere
with the order passed in the Writ Petition, not only for one of the reason
given by the learned Writ Court, but also for the reasons which we have
given in the preceding paragraphs.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Government appearing for
the appellants would contend that one of the sister of the petitioner has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.699 of 2020
completed her B.E. Degree and other sister is a student, who was just
completed her M.B.B.S. course. This can hardly be a reason to deny
employment.
6. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, if
the appellants had taken a stand that in 2014, the family was not in
indigenous circumstances, it may be of some relevance. But, at this
distant point of time, such indulgence cannot be granted. New ground
canvassed before us for the first time in the Writ Appeal cannot be
entertained. From the impugned order dated 28.02.2020, more
particularly, in paragraph 8 of the order, we find that the learned Writ
Court directed appointment to be given to the respondent to a post
proportionate to her qualification. This cannot be done as the authority
in terms of the guidelines issued by the Government, more particularly,
G.O.Ms.No.18, Labour and Employment Department, dated 23.01.2020,
which can be only an entry level post.
7. For the above reasons, this Writ Appeal is partly allowed and
the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to direct appointment to
be given to the respondent on compassionate ground is confirmed. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.699 of 2020
findings recorded in paragraph 4 are set aside, as such finding cannot be
rendered based on the decision referred to in paragraph 3, because those
decisions have been rendered interpreting the regularization of the Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board, which is not in paramateria with the guidelines
of the State Government. The appellants are directed to give
appointment to the respondent on compassionate ground, within a period
of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S. J.,] [S.A.I. J.,]
06.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
vsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.699 of 2020
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.A.(MD) No.699 of 2020
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.,
and
S.ANANTHI, J.,
vsm
W.A.(MD)No.699 of 2020
and C.M.P.(MD)No.4161 of 2020
06.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
