Madras High Court
S.Deepa vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 8 December, 2023
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A.No.968 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No.968 of 2020
S.Deepa ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Secretary,
Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Krishnagiri.
4.The Block Development Officer,
Bargur,
Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, praying
to set aside the order dated 28.01.2020 in W.P.No.1868 of 2020.
For Appellant : Ms.Dhakshayani Reddy
Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Mahendran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
W.A.No.968 of 2020
For Respondent : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
Special Government Pleader
for R1 to R3
: Mr.M.Murali
Government Advocate for R4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This intra Court appeal has been directed against the order passed
by the Writ Court dated 28.01.2020 made in W.P.No.1868 of 2020.
2. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The claim of the writ
petitioner was that, her father-in-law had owned a property to the extent
of 1.30 acres at her village, which was donated by him in the year 2006
by way of gift deed dated 21.07.2006 to the Education Department for
the construction of a School building.
3. The donation made by the father-in-law of the writ petitioner is
an unconditional one. In the place where it has been donated by the
father-in-law of the petitioner alone the School building was constructed
where the Noon Meal Programme has been started. In the Noon Meal
Programme, a Noon Meal Organiser post has become vacant, for which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the writ petitioner had made an application seeking appointment on
compassionate ground taking into account the land donated by the family
of the writ petitioner, but that plea was rejected by the order passed by
the 2nd respondent i.e., the District Collector in his order dated
04.09.2019 which was under challenge before the Writ Court.
4. The learned Judge who heard the writ petition has dismissed the
writ petition by holding that, the gift deed is an unconditional one and
moreover, it is a public employment. Insofar as the public employment is
concerned, only as per the rule such employment shall be made, out of
the purview of the rule if at all anything is made it must be only based on
the compassionate appointment not by any other method. Therefore,
there has been no such appointment that could be made on the basis of
the land donated to a School where the situation now has become vacant
seeking for such compassionate appointment, therefore on that ground
the learned Judge rejected the writ petition by order dated 28.01.2020
which is impugned herein.
5. Assailing the said order, Ms.Dhakshayani Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that, the gift that has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been made by the family of the petitioner i.e., the father-in-law of the
petitioner was an unconditional one. No doubt, however since the School
has been constructed in the land donated by the family of the petitioner
and the post now vacant is a Noon Meal Organiser which is a creation of
a Government Order and it is not a cadre post, therefore insofar as filling
up of the post of Noon Meal Organiser is concerned, the job seeker must
be in the same village or in the next village/hamlet within the 3
kilometers radius and he must have the minimum qualification. If these
two criterias are fulfilled, no other impediment with regard to the
eligibility of a job seeker to seek for such a job.
6. However, insofar as the job that has been sought for by the
petitioner is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel would point out that,
in a similar circumstances the job seeker, since belongs to the land
donor's family, as the husband donated the land, the wife sought an
appointment on compassionate ground in the very same department for
the very same post of Noon Meal Organiser. That position has been
accepted and recommended by the Director of Social Welfare
Department to the Government and the Government also having
accepted such recommendation made by the Director of Social Welfare
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Department has passed a Government Order in G.O.(P)No.149 Social
Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (S.N.4-2) Department dated
06.09.2016, where, the Government has passed the following order:
"After careful perusal of the recommendations of the
Commissioner of Social Welfare Department, and accepting
the same, permission is hereby granted to the District
Collector, Krishnagiri District, for appointing Mrs.P.Chitra,
wife of Mr.R.Perumal, who gifted land of an extent of 1 Acre
to Government High School, Kodiapathi, Mathur Panchayat
Union Krishnagiri District, to the post of Nutritious Meal
Organizer, under the Revolutionary Leader M.G.R.
Nutritious Meal Programme, by relaxing the age criteria
under the Scheme that the persons of the age between 21
and 40 shall be appointed to the said post, (since she is now
42 years of age), on compassionate ground. Further the
District Collector is hereby instructed that to following the
criteria of proximity radios at the time of appointing the
person.
The District Collector, Krishnagiri District is requested to
forward a copy of the order appointment."
7. Relying upon this Government Order, the learned Senior
Counsel would seek indulgence of this Court to pass suitable orders by
interfering with the judgment of the learned Judge which is impugned in
this appeal.
8. On the other hand, Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would contend
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that, admittedly it is a donation unconditionally been made by the family
member of the petitioner, moreover, the father-in-law has made the
donation long years back i.e. in the year 2006 and this application
seeking a compassionate appointment or appointment on the ground that
the land was donated by the family of the job seeker was made only in
the year 2018. Therefore there has been no connection whatsoever with
the present plea of the writ petitioner and the donation that has been
made with regard to the land in the year 2006.
9. Therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader would
contend that, the said G.O.(P)No.149 referred to by the petitioner/
appellant side may be an exception which might be applicable only to the
facts and circumstances of that particular case alone, therefore it cannot
be treated as an universal obligation insofar as all such donation that has
been made towards the Government for the construction of School and
other public buildings. Hence, the public employment i.e., Noon Meal
Organiser is to be made as per the rule which has been already framed
and issued by the relevant Government Order. Therefore, beyond the
scope of the rule, no appointment could be made, hence such an
appointment beyond the scope of the rule if at all is sought for, that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cannot be accepted. Thus the learned Judge having considered all these
aspects has rightly rejected the said plea made by the writ petitioner
through the impugned order, hence the impugned order does not warrant
any interference at the hands of the Division Bench, the learned Special
Government Pleader contended.
10. We have considered the said rival submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials
placed before this Court.
11. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, there has been
no vested right on the writ petitioner/appellant to seek for a job on
compassionate appointment merely on the ground that, from his family a
land has been donated where the School was constructed, in that School
Noon Meal Organiser post has become vacant, therefore priority shall be
given or compassionate appointment shall be made only to the petitioner.
That kind of plea normally would not be entertained in public
employment, therefore to that extent what has been observed by the
learned Judge in the impugned order is to be sustained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. However, when circumstances warrant, on case to case basis
that kind of pleas can be considered by the Government as there has been
precedent to that aspect, because, the G.O.(P)No.149, dated 06.09.2016
of the same Department with regard to the same post, in a similar
circumstances issued by the Government makes it clear that, such kind of
priority can be given for appointment in the post of Noon Meal Organiser
by taking into account the land donated to the Government.
13. In this context, this Court wants to make an observation that,
now a days the land cost whether in a village or in a town or in a city is
costly depending upon the location. In most of the Government projects
very often the Government is struggling to find out a suitable land or
place.
14. When that being so, if this kind of philanthropist or genuine
persons who come forward to donate their land acquired by them as their
property out of their hard earned money, such a gesture shown by those
donors can be reciprocated by the Government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. Even in case of land acquisition for some of the projects in
Tamil Nadu Electricity Department i.e., TANGEDCO, such kind of
gestures being shown by the Government by issuance of Government
Order to give job to one person of the family from whom the land is
acquired for any Government projects. That is the logic being followed
by the State Government insofar as the land donors are concerned,
therefore here also the same logic can be applied.
16. That is the reason why under a similar circumstances
G.O.(P)No.149 dated 06.09.2016 was issued, therefore if at all, not as a
matter of right, but the petitioner can very well seek such a claim for
appointment on compassionate ground as Noon Meal Organiser or Noon
Meal Worker in the very same village where the School has been
constructed in the land donated by her family and such a plea since is
raised that can be considered sympathetically on compassionate ground
by the department. Therefore, we are of the view that, the order passed
by the learned Judge which is impugned herein can be modified to that
extent by giving the following directions.
That there shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to
take a decision on the plea raised by the petitioner/appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for which a report can be sought for from the District
Collector and also from the Director of Social Welfare
Department as to whether such a compassionate appointment
can be given to the petitioner on the ground that, the land in
which the School was constructed where the post has now
arisen, was the land donated by the family of the petitioner.
By taking into account of the same gesture shown to
similarly placed persons especially in G.O.(P) No.149 dated
06.09.2016 of the same Department which is a recent order
and also taking into account of the aforestated observation
shall pass order by the 1st respondent within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
17. With the above directions, by modifying the order which is
impugned herein, this Writ Appeal is ordered accordingly. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
[R.S.K., J.] [G.A.M., J.]
08.12.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Sgl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu
Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Krishnagiri.
4.The Block Development Officer,
Bargur,
Krishnagiri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
Sgl
08.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
