IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.27798 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 V.Nandesh .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 2.The District Educational Officer, Hosur, 3.The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Sandanapalli. .. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records culminated in his order dated 27.7.2010 in Na.Ka.No.3414/2006/A1, quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant or any other equivalent post commensurate with his educational qualification. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Mohan For Respondents : Mr.A.Suresh, GA(Education) for RR1 and 2 - - - - ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order dated 27.07.2010 passed by the second respondent District Educational Officer, Hosur in declining to grant employment assistance on compassionate ground. In that order, it was stated that the petitioner’s father who was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher, died while in service on 29.5.1986. At the time of his death, the petitioner was only six years old and that the petitioner was not qualified to hold any post. Subsequently, after he became major, he made an application on 8.9.1999 to appoint him on compassionate ground. The said application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for grant of such appointment.
2.The counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a letter, dated 4.5.2010 and stated that on the basis of the said letter, the petitioner’s case can be considered.
3.On notice from this court, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated Nil (2011). In the counter affidavit, the very same Government letter was referred to. It was contended that an application has to be received within three years and not beyond. If it is received within three years, the other eligibility conditions and requirements can be considered.
4.It must be noted that the scheme of compassionate appointment is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it has to be strictly construed. When the petitioner was only six years old at the time of the death of his father and was not eligible for any post and admittedly, he had made an application after a period of 13 years, it cannot be said that his family is in dire need of any employment so as to meet an unforeseen contingencies.
5.In this context it is necessary to refer to a latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2206 of 2006, dated 05.04.2011 in Local Administration Department and another Vs. M.Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu. The following passages found in paragraphs 7 to 9 may be usefully extracted below:
“7.We think that the explanation given for the wife of the deceased not asking for employment is an after-thought and completely unacceptable. A person suffering from anaemia and low blood pressure will always greatly prefer the security and certainty of a regular job in the municipality which would be far more lucrative and far less taxing than doing menial work from house to house in an unorganised way. But, apart from this, there is a far more basic flaw in the view taken by the Division Bench in that it is completely divorced from the object and purpose of the scheme of compassionate appointments. It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the bread winner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind.
8.Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time but having regard to the delays in the administrative process and several other relevant factors such as the number of already pending claims under the scheme and availability of vacancies etc. normally the appointment may come after several months or even after two to three years. It is not our intent, nor it is possible to lay down a rigid time limit within which appointment on compassionate grounds must be made but what needs to be emphasised is that such an appointment must have some bearing on the object of the scheme.
9. In this case the respondent was only 11 years old at the time of the death of his father. The first application for his appointment was made on July 2, 1993, even while he was a minor. Another application was made on his behalf on attaining majority after 7 years and 6 months of his father’s death. In such a case, the appointment cannot be said to sub-serve the basic object and purpose of the scheme. It would rather appear that on attaining majority he staked his claim on the basis that his father was an employee of the Municipality and he had died while in service. In the facts of the case, the municipal authorities were clearly right in holding that with whatever difficulty, the family of Meenakshisundaram had been able to tide over the first impact of his death. That being the position, the case of the respondent did not come under the scheme of compassionate appointments.”
6.In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
1.The Director of School Education,
2.The District Educational Officer,
Government Higher Secondary School,
W.P.NO.27798 of 2010