Madras High Court
M.Navin Kumar vs The Chief Educational Officer on 18 September, 2024
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.7036 of 2023
and W.M.P.Nos.7115 & 7116 of 2023
M.Navin Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur – 602 001.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur – 602 001.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Tiruttai 631 209. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of
a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed
by the 2nd respondent herein vide his proceedings in O.Mu.No.4806/A3/2007 dated
04.02.2009 and in Na.Ka. No.5789/A3/2013 dated 02.09.2014 and the impugned order
passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.ka. No.1517/A1/2021 dated 16.09.2021 and quash
the same as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable being violative of rules and principles of
natural justice and thereby direct the respondents to provide appointment to the
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner on compassionate grounds in any suitable post consequent on the death of his
father dated 04.05.2006.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Suresh
For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajarajeshwari
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent
dated 04.02.2009 and the subsequent proceedings dated 02.09.2014 and the impugned
order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 16.09.2021 and for a consequential direction to
the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds in
any suitable post.
2.Heard Mr.A.R.Suresh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
Mrs.P.Rajarajeshwari, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondents.
3.The case of the petitioner is that his father who was working as a Night
Watchman in a Government High School, died in harness on 04.05.2006, leaving behind
the mother, the petitioner and two sisters. The petitioner's mother made an application in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the year 2007 requesting for appointment on compassionate ground. The same was
rejected by the 2nd respondent through proceedings dated 04.02.2009 on the ground that
the claim of the minor cannot be considered at that point of time. Once again an
application was made and it was rejected on 02.09.2014, again on the ground that the
petitioner was only aged about 13 years at the time of the demise of the father and he
was only 14 years at the time of making the application.
4.The final application submitted was also rejected by the 3 rd respondent through
proceedings dated 16.09.2021. The same has been made a subject matter of challenge in
the present writ petition.
5.The short issue that is involved in the present writ petition is as to whether the
petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.
6.There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner was a minor at the
time of making the application for appointment on compassionate ground. The law on
this issue is no longer res integra and it is covered by the judgment of the Full Bench of
this Court in W.P(MD)Nos.7016 etc., of 2011, dated 11.03.2020. The Full Bench after
considering all the earlier judgments, came to a conclusion that the three years period
from the date of death cannot be extended till the date of attaining majority. The Full
Bench held that the scheme does not permit entertaining an application by a dependent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
after attaining majority. The Full Bench also held that compassionate appointment is an
exception to the principle that there must be equality of opportunity in the matters of
public employment. Therefore, there is no vested right to claim for compassionate
appointment. The Full Bench also held that the object and purpose of providing
compassionate appointment is to enable the dependent members of the family of the
deceased to tide over the immediate financial crisis. Where a long lapse of time occurs,
since the date of the death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking
compassionate appointment would cease to exist and this will be a relevant circumstance
while dealing with the request made for compassionate appointment. The Full Bench
also held that there is no general right to the effect that a member of the family who was
a minor at the time of death would be entitled to claim compassionate appointment upon
attaining majority.
7.In the case in hand, the demise of the father had taken place in the year 2006,
the petitioner had attained majority much later and there is a big gap/lapse of time from
the date of death to the date of seeking for compassionate appointment for the petitioner
who attained majority only at a later point of time. That is a valid ground to reject the
claim for compassionate appointment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.In the light of the judgment of the Full Bench, this Court does not find any
ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 2 nd and 3rd respondents and
accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18.09.2024
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
ssr
To
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur – 602 001.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur – 602 001.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Tiruttai 631 209.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ssr
and W.M.P.Nos.7115 & 7116 of 2023
18.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
