G.Karthik Raj vs The Director Of School Education
2021 Latest Caselaw 22109 Mad

                                                                        W.A(MD)No.1998 of 2021


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED: 10.11.2021

                                                    CORAM:

                     THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
                                           AND
                         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                            W.A(MD)No.1998 of 2021


                     G.Karthik Raj                             :Appellant/Petitioner

                                                        Vs.

                     1.The Director of School Education,
                       O/o. Directorate of School Education,
                       Chepauk,
                       Chennai - 600 005.

                     2.The Chief Educational Officer,
                       O/o. The Chief Education Office,
                       Ramanathapuram,
                       Ramanathapuram District.

                     3.The District Educational Officer,
                       O/o. The District Education Office,
                       Paramakudi,
                       Ramanathapuram District.

                     4.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
                       O/o. The District Elementary Education Office,
                       Paramakudi,
                       Ramanathapuram District.                 : Respondents/Respondents



                     1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                            W.A(MD)No.1998 of 2021


                     PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
                     praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
                     W.P(MD)No.19554 of 2017, dated 20.01.2021.


                                  For Appellant             : Mr.P.Gunasekaran

                                  For Respondents           : Mr.P.Subbaraj,
                                                              Government Advocate

                                                    JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.]

This writ appeal filed by the appellant / writ petitioner is

directed against the order, refusing to consider the appointment of the

writ petitioner on compassionate grounds. The challenge is to the order

passed by the third respondent, dated 05.06.2017.

2. Admittedly, the father of the appellant /petitioner died in

the year 2007 and his younger brother had applied for appointment in the

year 2010. The said application was returned on 01.03.2012 by the first

respondent stating that when the writ appellant, who is the elder son was

qualified to apply for a job, he had allowed the younger son to apply for

the same, with the no objection of the appellant, it was rejected. The said

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.1998 of 2021

order was not challenged either by the brother of the appellant or by the

appellant himself.

3.The only contention of the appellant is that he is qualified

to be appointed in the respondent Department as he has completed the

teacher training. It is a well-settled aspect that the appointment on

compassionate grounds is not a matter of right and it is only a succor to

the family, who lost its sole bread-winner. G.O.Ms.No.18 dated

23.01.2020, which was issued by the Government setting out the

guidelines for appointment on compassionate grounds was also fixed the

period of limitation as three years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

in 2020(2) SCC 729 (Indian Bank and Others Vs. Promila and

Another) also held that while considering the appointment on

compassionate grounds, whatever the rules prevalent at the relevant

point of time has to be considered.

4.In such circumstances, the application is not filed within

three years. The application of the appellant is barred by limitation.

Secondly, he has not challenged the earlier rejection order and had

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.1998 of 2021

allowed to become final. Thirdly, it is rightly pointed out by the writ

Court that he has not established that the family is in distress and that he

is eligible for compassionate appointment.

5.For the above said reasons, the writ appeal does not find

any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs.

                                                             [P.S.N.,J.]     [P.V.,J.]
                                                                     10.11.2021


                     Index:Yes/No
                     Internet:Yes/No
                     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.1998 of 2021

To

1.The Director of School Education, O/o. Directorate of School Education, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

2.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o. The Chief Education Office, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The District Educational Officer, O/o. The District Education Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

4.The District Elementary Educational Officer, O/o. The District Elementary Education Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.1998 of 2021

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

AND P.VELMURUGAN, J.

rm

JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A(MD) No.1998 of 2021

10.11.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis