Madras High Court
M.V.Manopriya vs The Director Of School Education on 1 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.954 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.954 of 2021
M.V.Manopriya : Appellant
Vs.
1.The Director of School Education,
Chennai – 6.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Nagercoil District,
Nagercoil. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order dated 20.01.2021, in W.P.(MD)No.14455 of
2017 and allow the writ appeal.
For Appellants : Mrs.Porkodi Karnan
for M/s.Polax Legal Solutions
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Standing Counsel for Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.A.(MD)No.954 of 2021
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
With the consent on either side, this Writ Appeal is taken up for
final disposal.
2.Heard Mrs.Porkodi Karnan for M/s.Polax Legal Solutions,
learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.R.Baskaran, learned
Standing Counsel for Government appearing for the respondents.
3.This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.01.2021, in
W.P.(MD)No.14455 of 2017. The said writ petition was filed by the
appellant challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated
08.06.2017, rejecting her application for grant of appointment on
compassionate grounds.
4.The appellant's father Mr.K.Murugan, was working as a Tamil
Pandit in a Government School, coming under the control of the second
respondent and had put in more than 30 years of service and died in
harness on 01.08.2007, leaving behind the appellant's mother and her
elder sister and the appellant as three legal heirs. The appellant has
submitted an application dated 22.11.2007, for grant of appointment to
her on compassionate ground. When the application was pending, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.954 of 2021
appellant was given in marriage to Mr.G.Prabhu Sankara Narayanan, in
the year 2011. The application submitted by the appellant during 2007
was rejected by an order dated 08.06.2017, which was impugned in the
writ petition.
5.The order impugned in the writ petition rejects the claim of
the appellant, primarily for the reason that she is well qualified having
acquired a Post Graduate qualification with B.Ed., and M.Phil., and that
her husband is an Engineer with Post Graduate qualification and working
in a private Engineering College. There is also a reference to the status
of the appellant's sister, who is also given in marriage.
6.The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that
the second respondent has not assigned any reasons for keeping the
application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground pending
for more than 10 years and rejecting the said application for the reasons
and circumstances prevailing in 2017 is not tenable and what was
required to be considered is whether the appellant was eligible to be
considered for appointment on compassionate ground when she
submitted her application ie., in the year 2007.
7.The learned Single Bench had dismissed the writ petition. In
fact, certain of the observations made by the learned Single Bench is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.954 of 2021
correct, in the sense that there is no vested right for an individual to
claim appointment and it is granted on the extant and policy of the
employer. The learned Single Bench also proceeded on the basis of the
subsequent events, namely, the marriage of the appellant, her
qualification and found that the order impugned in the writ petition does
not call for interference.
8.Though we agree with certain observations made by the
learned Single Bench, we are of the view that the aspect as to why the
second respondent had kept the application for compassionate ground
appointment pending for more than 10 years has not been considered,
more particularly, the second respondent having not given any
satisfactory explanation for the same. Very often, the department rejects
applications for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground of
delay and latches. If that is so, the same principle can be very well
applied to the department, when they keep the application pending for
more than a decade. So far as the marital status of the appellant is
concerned, that may not be a sole reason to deny consideration of the
application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. It may be
true that the appellant is well qualified, that by itself would not guarantee
that she has independent source of income.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.954 of 2021
9.Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though the
appellant's husband has Post Graduate qualification in Engineering, he is
unemployed for three [3] years and the family is still in indigent
circumstances and the appellant's mother is taken care of by the
appellant.
10.Considering these facts, we are of the view that the second
respondent should re-consider the application filed by the appellant after
examining as to the financial status of the appellant and her family for
which appropriate report should be called through the jurisdictional
Tahsildar, who should submit a report after conducting a discrete enquiry
with regard to the financial status of the appellant.
11.For the above reasons, we are inclined to interfere with the
order passed in the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed
and the order passed in the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.14455 of 2017
dated 20.01.2021 is set aside. Consequently, the order impugned in the
writ petition is set aside and the matter is remitted to the second
respondent with the following direction:
“The second respondent is directed to address the
jurisdictional Tahsildar, to conduct a discrete enquiry as
regards the financial status and other related
circumstances of the appellant and her family and submit a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.954 of 2021
report to the second respondent and based on the said
report, the second respondent shall pass fresh orders on
merits and in accordance with law.”
The above direction be complied with within a reasonable time,
not later than four [4] months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
01.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR/RM
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.954 of 2021
To
1.The Director of School Education,
Chennai – 6.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Nagercoil District,
Nagercoil.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.954 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
MR
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.954 of 2021
01.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
