Madras High Court
P.Ponmani Brintha vs The Chief Education Officer on 7 March, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.22466 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.03.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD) No.22466 of 2021
P.Ponmani Brintha ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Chief Education Officer,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the records relating to impugned order passed by the 1st
respondent in his proceedings O.Mu.No.6275/A1/2021 dated
22.09.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in
any suitable post within stipulated time fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Manimaran
For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh
Addl. Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P.(MD) No.22466 of 2021
ORDER
The order of rejection rejecting the clam of the writ petitioner
for compassionate appointment in proceedings dated 22.09.2021, is
under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The father of the writ petitioner Late S.Paul Nadar was
working as Secondary Grade Teacher in Government High School
and died on 31.07.1992 while he was in service. The brother of the
writ petitioner as well as the writ petitioner were minors during the
relevant point of time. The brother of the writ petitioner was made
an application in the year 2007, which was rejected. However, the
learned counsel for the petitioner states that the application was
made in the year 2002, but it makes no difference, as both the
applications if taken into consideration it were submitted beyond
the period of three years.
3. The application submitted by the brother of the writ
petitioner was rejected and thereafter, the brother has not
pursued. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application seeking
appointment on 15.09.2021, after a lapse of about 29 years from
the date of the death of the deceased employee. First of all, the
application submitted by the petitioner as a second application
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.22466 of 2021
need not be entertained, as the brother of the petitioner has not
pursued. Even the brother of the writ petitioner submitted an
application beyond the period of 3 years and therefore, the said
application itself was not entertainable. At the out set, the present
application submitted by the writ petitioner seeking appointment
after a lapse of 29 years from the date of the death of the deceased
employee deserves no merits consideration, the Honourable
Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
vs. Premlata, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 30, in which the
Supreme Court has made 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.22466 of 2021
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;
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.22466 of 2021
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 v.
LIC [(2005) 10 SCC 289], it is 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.22466 of 2021
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.22466 of 2021
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 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 v. State of
Maharashtra [Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.22466 of 2021
State of 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.”
4. This court do not find any infirmity or perversity in the
impugned order of rejection, passed by the 1st respondent, dated
22.09.2021. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs.
07.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
MPK
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.22466 of 2021
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Municipal Administration
and Water Supply,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Commissioner,
Dindigul Municipal Corporation,
Dindigul.
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.22466 of 2021
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
MPK
W.P.(MD) No.22466 of 2021
07.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
