Madras High Court
Sekar M vs The Director Of Education ... on 17 August, 2022
W.P.No.34713 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.34713 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
Sekar M ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of Education Department,
College Road,
Chennai – 06.
2.The District Educational Officer,
District Educational Office,
Namakkal District.
3.The Head Master,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Vennanthur, Namakkal 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
proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide in Na.Nu.No.9547/A1/2004 dated
14.5.2015 and quash the same and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent
to give suitable job on compassionate ground.
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34713 of 2015
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thenrajan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The impugned order of rejection dated 14.05.2015, rejecting the claim
of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the
present writ petition.
2. The petitioner states that the father of the writ petitioner Late Raman
was working as a Sweeper in Government Higher Secondary School and died
on 25.09.2002, while he was in service. The writ petitioner submitted an
application on 30.10.2003 for providing an appointment on compassionate
grounds. However, the respondents have not considered the same during the
relevant point of time and after a lapse of 12 years, the 2nd respondent issued
the impugned order in proceedings dated 14.05.2015. The application was
rejected on the ground that the younger brother of the writ petitioner
Mr.Ramesh was appointed as a permanent employee of Vennandur Town
Panchayat and therefore, the other legal heirs are not eligible for appointment
on compassionate grounds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34713 of 2015
3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that if
at all the application was considered during the relevant point of time, within
a reasonable period of time, such ground would not have existed and
therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
4. Presumptive argument in this regard is of no avail to the writ
petitioner. The fact remains that the employee died on 25.09.2002 and the
application submitted on 30.10.2003 was not even pursued by the petitioner
and only after the rejection order, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the
year 2015. Thus, the petitioner also had slept over his right. The reason stated
that the younger brother of the writ petitioner is employed as a permanent
employee is a disqualification for appointment on compassionate grounds as
per the terms and conditions stipulated. Therefore, the respondents have
rejected the application in accordance with the terms and conditions
stipulated. Once any one of the legal heir of the deceased employee secured
appointment in Government Departments or in private sector, then the other
legal heirs are not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds.
5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the very purpose and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34713 of 2015
object of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the
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.
6. 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.
7. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34713 of 2015
public administration. No selection is conducted. Rule of reservation has not
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.
8. 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.
9. Even recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Premlata [(2022) 1 SCC 30], has made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34713 of 2015
observations in respect of implementation of the scheme of compassionate
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34713 of 2015
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34713 of 2015
observed and held as under:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34713 of 2015
exception is in favour of the dependants of an
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34713 of 2015
categories and hence they alone can be offered on
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34713 of 2015
Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC
(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.”
10. In view of the fact that the reason stated in the impugned order for
rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner is in accordance with the terms
and conditions, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34713 of 2015
11. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.08.2022
Index : Yes
Speaking order:Yes
kak
To
1.The Director of Education Department,
College Road,
Chennai – 06.
2.The District Educational Officer,
District Educational Office,
Namakkal District.
3.The Head Master,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Vennanthur, Namakkal District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.34713 of 2015
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
W.P.No.34713 of 2015
17.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
