ORDER
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.
Page 1298
1. These two writ petitions are filed by one of the legal heirs of the former employee of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, who died on 25.11.1994. In W.P. No. 21233 of 2001, he prays for declaration that class 3 of para 3 of the Board proceedings in B.P.Ms.(FB) No. 46 (Admn. Branch) dated 13.10.1995 as ultra-vires and unconstitutional and violative of G.O.Ms. No. 120, Labour and Employment dated 26.6.95 and the subsequent letter by the department dated 11.10.1995. In W.P. No. 21234 of 2001, he prays for certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 14.04.2001 and to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the claims of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner contends that the deceased, left behind his two wives, two brothers and himself. The petitioner was aged about 17 years at the time of the death of his father. He applied for compassionate appointment in the year 1995, which was returned on 31.10.1995, directing him to obtain consent letter from the other legal heirs. The same was complied with.
3. From the facts stated in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the application was again returned, directing him to furnish proof of his educational qualification as he had claimed to have passed 8th standard. Subsequently, he furnished mark certificate, which discloses that he had not passed 8th standard, but had failed in one of the subjects. Therefore, his application was rejected.
4. There is no dispute over the fact that subsequently he passed in Mathematics only in the examination held during December 1999. On the strength of his having acquired the minimum qualification, he again applied on 07.08.2000. The said request was rejected by the respondents in and by letter dated 14.09.2000 on the ground that he had not acquired the qualification within the period of three years. Therefore, he has sought for questioning the said letter as well as to declare the Board proceedings dated 13.10.1995 as ultravires. At this juncture, it may be stated that the impugned order imposes a period of three year limitation from the date of death of the former employee.
5. In terms of the said proceedings, the Board had made it clear that application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within three years from the date of death of the employee and in the case of already expired staff while in service, the defendant should apply within a period of three years from the date of issue of the order viz., from 13.10.1995. As on the date, when the petitioner had acquired the qualification, the date of examination being December 1999 and publication of the result being in July 2000, both the dates being well beyond the period of three years from 13.10.1995, the petitioner’s claim was rejected.
6. I have heard both sides in detail. Both sides have made elaborate reference to the periodical orders issued by the Government and the respondent Board in the context of compassionate appointment. It is not necessary to go through all the decisions sited before me, considering that the issue of compassionate appointments had been recently extended to perverse and unjustified length Page 1299 and extent, the Supreme Court realising that the sympathy shown in such cases was becoming misplaced, had been categorically holding that the right to be appointed on compassionate grounds can only be on terms of the regulations governing the scheme and not beyond the scheme. Compassionate appointment is for all practical purposes an irregular method of appointment beyond the rules and regulations relating to recruitment and hence no one can be heard to raise the objection questioning the validity of the scheme. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is an autonomous body and hence entitled to have its own scheme.
7. In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar (2000 (6) Supreme 43), the applicant was a minor at the time of the death of the employee. Application was made beyond the period prescribed as limitation and hence rejected as time barred. The Supreme Court held that there cannot be reservation of vacancy till such time the claimant becomes a major.
8. In Union of India v. Jogindar Sharma (2002 (7) Supreme 83), the Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment cannot be ordered dehors the provisions of the scheme. Their lordships relied on an earlier judgment in L.I.C. v. Ramchhandra Ambeker .
9. Therefore, the latest trend of the law laid down by the Supreme Court shows that the Court had frowned upon compassionate appointments being made or ordered by the High Courts in a casual way ignoring the extent to which damage was being done to public service.
10. In my humble opinion, I have never been able to reconcile myself for making compassionate appointments in the case of natural death of an employee. The idea of compassionate appointment was originally mooted only to do justice to tragic cases of death of public servants, loosing their life in performing their duties such as, an army personnel loosing his life while defending the country, a policeman meeting his end at the hands of an escaping criminal, a customs officer being shot dead while conducting a raid, electricity board employees loosing their life due to electrocution while performing their duties, a railway driver dying in an accident to a train not having been due to his negligence. Few more examples can be given and quite recently few revenue officials were killed in their attempt to prevent illicit sand quarrying. It is for them compassionate appointment was originally visualised.
11. Later on, associations of Government servants and Trade Unions started pressurising their employers to appoint the legal heirs of employees who die natural death. This has resulted to total demoralisation of the sanctity of appointment to public offices. In my understanding of Marxism, this is nothing but obnoxious than what is called as “Bourgeoisie”, converting Government and Public service into a private and hereditary service. I had come across an instance of a Trade Union attached to a public sector undertaking entering into a statutory settlement, one of the condition being that all vacancies Page 1300 should be filled up only by the kith and kin of the existing employees. This only reflects that the evil of compassionate appointment even in the case of natural death, had developed into the Government and Public Sector Undertakings formulating the policy of filling up the vacancies, only with the kith and kin of the existing employees. I ask myself why should there be any regulation of appointment by selection and merit among the millions of meritorious have-nots who are standing in the queue for years together without employment. Sentimental and nice words like “providing relief to the family due to untimely demise of the sole bread winner”, cannot have any meaning if one looks into the realities of life. Are there not any untimely natural deaths leaving the family in lurch among the millions of families of agriculturists, artisans, technicians, self employed persons, coolies etc and what is the public employment system doing for the families of those persons? Or can it be achieved in a sensible and practical manner? Nice words as above are invented by the selfish groups to deceive the public.
12. Public employment means it should be open to the public and candidates including the legal heir of a deceased employee should be able to enter the service through general competition and by proving his own merits. Compassionate appointment is to be restricted and resorted rarely only in the event of the death of the employee while performing his duties without any negligence on his part. I have mentioned number of such examples. In Veeramani v. Tamil Nadu Electricitiy Board (W.P. No. 39010 of 2002 dated 10.09.2005), where the employee/helper died due to electrocution while performing his duties, I have allowed the writ petition directing appointment to be given to him forthwith by ignoring all the rules, limitation etc.
13. Entertaining improper appointments on compassionate appointment had reached an unimaginable and unethical proportions and demands are being made seeking employment after 10 years after the death of the employee after the legal heir attains majority and that basic qualifications should be relaxed. If the administration in its wisdom had fixed three years as the period of limitation, I do not find anything illegal or unconstitutional in such regulation.
14. Apart from there being no legal ground to sustain the above two writ petitions, I also find that the conduct of the petitioner in this case is also not above board. When he applied for the post in the year 1995, he had claimed to have passed 8th standard – vide letter of the Board dated 19.10.1995. The real fact is that he had passed 8th standard only in December 1999. Though the letter of the respondent is enclosed in the typed set, there is no mention of this in the affidavit being an important fact pertaining to the claim of the petitioner and in the affidavit, there is only a mention of the letter dated 22.06.1996 from the respondent. In the affidavit, it is stated that in the said letter, the respondent had informed that his transfer certificate was not true. Copy of the said letter dated 22.06.1996 has not been filed in the typed set. There is no reference to his false claim of educational qualification. Therefore, it is evident that he has not approached the authorities or even this Court with clean hands. On that ground alone, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Page 1301
15. The improper conduct of the petitioner is the outcome of the undue and undesirable frenzy which has been created by the irrational policy of compassionate appointments, even in the case of natural death. Even ignoring the case of the petitioner, I have already expressed my opinion about the undesirable nature and the extent to which the compassionate appointments are sought to be made. If really the Government and Public Sector Undertakings are genuinely interested in a disciplined policy of recruitment to public service and if really the Government Employees Associations and Trade Unions believe in true communism and socialism, compassionate appointments on the natural death of an employee should be abolished.
16. In the result, I do not find any ground to interfere with the orders of the Board or as regards the validity of the impugned proceedings of the Board. The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.