Madras High Court
Gayathri Devi vs The Director Of School Education on 2 September, 2021
W.P. (MD)No.18804 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.09.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.18804 of 2020
Gayathri Devi
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus,
College Road,
Chennai – 06.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned order in Mu.Mu.No.9837/A1/2017
dated 01.10.2020 on the file of the second respondent and quash the
same as illegal and consequently direct the second respondent to
provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner in a suitable post
considering the petitioner's application dated 28.12.2011 within the
time period stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy
For Respondents : Mr. S. Shanmugavel
Counsel for State
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD)No.18804 of 2020
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed for the issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned order in Mu.Mu.No.9837/A1/2017 dated 01.10.2020 on the
file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the second respondent to provide compassionate
appointment to the petitioner in a suitable post considering the
petitioner's application dated 28.12.2011 within the time period
stipulated by this Court.
2. The writ petitioner's father was working as School Assistant at
Government Higher Secondary School, Kottaram, Kanyakumari District,
and he died on 12.08.2009 in harness leaving behind the following
legal heirs: S. Saraswathi, wife, S.Balasivanantha Prabhu, son,
Madhava Sankar, son, Karpagavalli, daughter, Sarathamani Devi,
daughter, Srinivasa Ramanjuam, son and Gayatridevi, daughter.
3. The petitioner Gayathir Devi, had submitted an application for
compassionate appointment to the second respondent on the death of
her father. According to the petitioner, the other family members had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD)No.18804 of 2020
given no objection with regard to the petitioner's application for
compassionate appointment. The said application was rejected by the
second respondent on the ground that the petitioner's elder brother,
S.Balasivanantha Prabhu was an employee in the Annamalai Univeristy
and other family members are educated and having earning capacity.
The said order was challenged in W.P.(MD)No.15781 of 2019 before
this Court. By order dated 31.07.2019, this court dismissed the writ
petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed W.A.(MD).No.
1050 of 2019. By judgment dated 16.12.2019, the Division Bench of
this Court has set aside the impugned aforesaid rejection order and the
matter was remitted back to the second respondent to consider afresh
and pass appropriate orders. Subsequently, now the present
impugned order has been passed by the second respondent.
Challenging the aforesaid order, the writ petitioner has filed the
present writ petition before this Court.
4. According to the petitioner, the reason as stated in the order is
that the petitioner's brother, one Srinivasa Ramanjuam is a practising
advocate and hence, her application was rejected. The respondents
have not considered the total income of the family of the deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD)No.18804 of 2020
employee. Without considering all these aspects, the said order has
been passed without application of mind and apart from that there is
no bar to consider the application of the sister, if the elder brother is
practising as an advocate, under the Government orders. The
Government order says that only if any person of the deceased
Government servant's family is a regular employee of the Government
or any Private Enterprise the said application for appointment on
compassionate ground cannot be considered. Therefore she seeks for
setting aside the impugned order and direct the respondent to consider
her application on merits and pass appropriate orders.
5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the writ
petitioner has to place relevant records before the concerned
authorities, especially the financial status of the family as well as status
of the other brothers and sisters of the family of the deceased father
and if those details satisfy with the guidelines of the Government
Order, then the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment.
6. It is seen from the submissions of the counsel for the parties
concerned, that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner's father died
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD)No.18804 of 2020
on 12.08.2009, while he was in service and after death of the
petitioner's father, the petitioner submitted an application which was
rejected for the reason that the petitioner's elder brother was
employed at Annamalai university, however the said order was taken
upto appellate stage and pursuant to the order passed in W.A.No.1050
of 2019, the respondents have passed the present order.
7. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the
respondents have not adduced the reason for rejection of the said
application. The impugned order passed by the respondents is only on
the ground that the elder brother of the petitioner is a practising
advocate. This Court will not accept the said reason that there is
specific bar for not considering the application on the ground that her
brother is a practising advocate. As per the Government order, only in
the case, where if any of the person of the deceased Government
servant's family is a regular employee in the Government or in private
enterprises they are not entitled for the compassionate appointment,
(No details of the brothers, their financial position as well as other
dependency particulares found in the order), the above said aspect has
not examined by the authority, while rejecting the claim of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD)No.18804 of 2020
petitioner. Therefore the said reason stated in the order is
unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. The Writ petitioner
shall also furnish all the additional documents to the respondents,
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the
order.
8. In fine, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is
allowed and the respondents are directed to consider afresh and pass
order on the application of the petitioner, in the light of G.O.Ms.18
Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020 and to
pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a
period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this
order. No costs.
02.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes /No
mnr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD)No.18804 of 2020
To
1. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus,
College Road,
Chennai – 06.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD)No.18804 of 2020
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
mnr
W.P.(MD).No.18804 of 2020
02.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
