Madras High Court
R.Seshathri Srinivasan vs The Secretary To Government Of ... on 17 August, 2022
W.P.No.40118 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.40118 of 2015
R.Seshathri Srinivasan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu,
Department of School Education,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Office of the DEO,
Sankagiri Educational District,
Sankagiri.
4.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Vanavasi (Post)
Mettur Taluk, Salem District. ..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd
respondent herein culminating in Na.Ka.No.1934/A1/2002 on the file of the
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.40118 of 2015
3rd respondent herein dated 21.9.2015 and quash the same and consequently
direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post on
compassionate ground within the time frame as may be fixed by this
Honourable court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Santhanaraman
For R1 to R4 : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai
Government Advocate
ORDER
The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner is under
challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner states that his father Late P.Rengasamy was working
as Middle School Teacher in the Government Higher Secondary, Vanavasi
and died on 16.04.2003, while he was in service. The petitioner states that he
submitted an application on 06.01.2004 to provide appointment on
compassionate grounds. However, the respondents have not considered the
application within a reasonable period of time.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that even
the original educational certificates of the writ petitioner were retained by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.40118 of 2015
Headmaster of the Government Higher Secondary School for about 6 years
and the said certificates were returned only through proceedings dated
12.11.2010. Since the original certificates of the writ petitioner were retained
by the Headmaster of the School, he was under the bonafide impression that
his case will be considered on the ground of appointment on compassionate
grounds. Finally, the order of rejection was passed on 21.09.2015, stating
that the family of the writ petitioner was not in indigent circumstances and
therefore, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
4. The fact remains that the father of the writ petitioner died on
16.04.2003. Almost 19 years lapsed. Though the petitioner submitted an
application on 06.01.2004, he had also slept over the issue for long years. In
the year 2010, his certificates were returned. There is no document to
establish that the petitioner had pursued the remedy in between. However, the
order impugned was passed in the year 2015, stating that the brother of the
writ petitioner after completion of his B.E. degree, is working in United
States of America. The petitioner himself was working at Rasipuram
Muthayammal Polytechnic as Lecturer. It is further contended that the family
was earning sufficient income and the legal heirs of the deceased employee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.40118 of 2015
got married and settled. Under those circumstances, the authorities rejected
the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment.
5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that at
present, the petitioner is not working and therefore, his case is to be
considered for compassionate appointment. It is not in dispute that the writ
petitioner was earlier working as a Lecturer in a private Polytechnic. That
apart, his brother is employed in United States of America. The petitioner
even at the time of filing of the writ petition, was aged about 35 years and
now he would be around 42. He got married and living along with his family.
Therefore, at this length of time, and more so, after a lapse of 19 years from
the date of death of the deceased employee, the Court cannot form an opinion
that the family is in indigent circumstances. Even presuming that the family is
in indigent circumstances, the benefit of scheme of compassionate
appointment cannot be extended since such indigency after several years
cannot be considered as relevant with reference to the date of death of an
employee.
6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the very purpose and
object of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.40118 of 2015
circumstances arising on account of the sudden death of an employee. It is not
as if one appointment is to be provided to the family of the deceased
employee. The indigency must be the criteria for the purpose of considering
the application.
7. Lapse of time would also provide a ground to draw a factual
inference that the penurious circumstances aroused on account of the sudden
death of an employee became vanished. Thus, Courts have repeatedly held
that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after several years.
8. Scheme of compassionate appointment is in violation of the Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Scheme being violative of the equality
clause enunciated under the Constitution, it is to be implemented strictly in
accordance with the terms and conditions. All appointments are to be made
strictly in accordance with the rules. Compassionate appointment is an
exception and a concession. Scheme of compassionate appointment is not an
absolute right, so also, concession can never be claimed as a matter of right.
Excess appointment on compassionate ground would result in inefficiency in
public administration. No selection is conducted. Rule of reservation has not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.40118 of 2015
been followed. Merit assessments are not made. That exactly is the reason
why the Courts have held that the scheme of compassionate appointment is a
concession and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
No selection procedures are followed for such compassionate appointments,
the scheme is restricted by the Government itself in order to provide
appointment only to the eligible candidates, who all are able to establish the
genuinity to claim compassionate appointment.
9. This Court is of the considered opinion that appointments on
compassionate grounds are streamlined by the Government, so as to provide
appointment only on genuine grounds. Even any one of the legal heirs are
employed in Government service or in private service and an earning
member, then the family of the deceased employee is not eligible for
Compassionate appointment.
10. Even recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State
of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Premlata [(2022) 1 SCC 30], has made
observations in respect of implementation of the scheme of compassionate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.40118 of 2015
appointment and the relevant portion of the observations are extracted
hereunder:
“8. While considering the issue involved in
the present appeal, the law laid down by this
Court on compassionate ground on the death of
the deceased employee are required to be
referred to and considered. In the recent decision,
this Court in State of Karnataka vs.
V.Somayashree [(2021) 12 SCC 20], had
occasion to consider the principle governing the
grant of appointment on compassionate ground.
After referring to the decision of this Court in
N.C.Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka [(2020) 7
SCC 617], this Court has summarized the
principle governing the grant of appointment on
compassionate ground as under:
10.1. That the compassionate appointment
is an exception to the general rule;
10.2. That no aspirant has a right to
compassionate appointment;
10.3. The appointment to any public post in
the service of the State has to be made on the
basis of the principle in accordance with Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.40118 of 2015
10.4. Appointment on compassionate
ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms
laid down by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction
of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;
10.5. The norms prevailing on the date of
the consideration of the application should be the
basis for consideration of claim for
compassionate appointment.
9. As per the law laid down by this Court in
a catena of decisions on the appointment on
compassionate ground, for all the government
vacancies equal opportunity should be provided
to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment
on compassionate ground offered to a dependent
of a deceased employee is an exception to the said
norms. The compassionate ground is a concession
and not a right.
9.1. In the case of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar
[(2019) 3 SCC 653], this Court in paras 21 and
26 had an occasion to consider the object and
purpose of appointment on compassionate ground
and considered decision of this Court in Govind
Prakash Verma vs. LIC [(2005) 10 SCC 289], it is
observed and held as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.40118 of 2015
“21. The decision in Govind Prakash
Verma, has been considered subsequently in
several decisions. But, before we advert to those
decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of
compassionate appointment had been considered
by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138]. The principles
which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar
Nagpal have been subsequently followed in a
consistent line of precedents in this Court. These
principles are encapsulated in the following
extract:
“2. … As a rule, appointments in the public
services should be made strictly on the basis of
open invitation of applications and merit. No
other mode of appointment nor any other
consideration is permissible. Neither the
Governments nor the public authorities are at
liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the
qualifications laid down by the rules for the post.
However, to this general rule which is to be
followed strictly in every case, there are some
exceptions carved out in the interests of justice
and to meet certain contingencies. One such
exception is in favour of the dependants of an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.40118 of 2015
employee dying in harness and leaving his family
in penury and without any means of livelihood. In
such cases, out of pure humanitarian
consideration taking into consideration the fact
that unless some source of livelihood is provided,
the family would not be able to make both ends
meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide
gainful employment to one of the dependants of
the deceased who may be eligible for such
employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate employment is thus to enable the
family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is
not to give a member of such family a post much
less a post for post held by the deceased. What is
further, mere death of an employee in harness
does not entitle his family to such source of
livelihood. The Government or the public
authority concerned has to examine the financial
condition of the family of the deceased, and it is
only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of
employment, the family will not be able to meet
the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible
member of the family. The posts in Classes III and
IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual
categories and hence they alone can be offered on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.40118 of 2015
compassionate grounds, the object being to
relieve the family, of the financial destitution and
to help it get over the emergency. The provision of
employment in such lowest posts by making an
exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since
it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment
given to such dependant of the deceased employee
in such posts has a rational nexus with the object
sought to be achieved viz. relief against
destitution. No other posts are expected or
required to be given by the public authorities for
the purpose. It must be remembered in this
connection that as against the destitute family of
the deceased there are millions of other families
which are equally, if not more destitute. The
exception to the rule made in favour of the family
of the deceased employee is in consideration of
the services rendered by him and the legitimate
expectations, and the change in the status and
affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile
employment which are suddenly upturned.”
“26. The judgment of a Bench of two
Judges in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of
Maharashtra [Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of
Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.40118 of 2015
(L&S) 1077] has adopted the principle that
appointment on compassionate grounds is not a
source of recruitment, but a means to enable the
family of the deceased to get over a sudden
financial crisis. The financial position of the
family would need to be evaluated on the basis of
the provisions contained in the scheme. The
decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind
Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005
SCC (L&S) 590] has been duly considered, but
the Court observed that it did not appear that the
earlier binding precedents of this Court have
been taken note of in that case.”
11. In the present case, the father of the writ petitioner died in the year
2003. Now 19 years lapsed. In the event of providing appointment on
compassionate ground, now after a lapse of 19 years from the date of death of
the deceased employee, then the very purpose and object of the scheme
would be defeated.
12. This being the scope of the scheme, the case of the writ petitioner
now at this length of time cannot be considered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.40118 of 2015
13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
17.08.2022
Index : Yes
Speaking order:Yes
kak
To
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu,
Department of School Education,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Office of the DEO,
Sankagiri Educational District,
Sankagiri.
4.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Vanavasi (Post)
Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.40118 of 2015
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
W.P.No.40118 of 2015
17.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
