High Court · 2025

W.A.No.2970 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23.10.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHARW.A.No.2970 of 2025M.Navin Kumar..AppellantVs.1. The Chief Educational Officer Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur – 602 001.2. The District Educational Officer Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur – 602 001.3. The District Educational Officer Tiruttani 631 209...RespondentsPrayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P.No.7036 of 2023 dated 18.09.2024.For the Appellant:Mr.A.R.SureshFor the Respondents:Mr.J.C.DurairajAdditional Government PleaderJUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 18.09.2024 made in W.P.No.7036 of 2023.Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2970 of 20252.1. That the case of the appellant/writ petitioner was that, his father was working as a Night Watchman in a Government High School, who died in harness on 04.05.2006, leaving behind the mother, the appellant/writ petitioner and two sisters. 2.2. The appellant/writ petitioner's mother made an application in the year 2007, seeking compassionate appointment for him, which was rejected by the second respondent through his proceedings dated 04.02.2009 on the ground that the claim made for the minor cannot be considered at that point of time.2.3. Once again, an application was made and it was also rejected on 02.09.2014 on the ground that the appellant was only 13 years old at the time of the demise of his father and was only 14 years old at the time of making the application. 2.4. Thereafter, the third application was submitted and the same was rejected on 16.09.2021, which was under challenge before the Writ Court.Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2970 of 20253. The learned Writ Court, having taken into account the law declared by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.7016 of 2011 and etc. batch dated 11.03.2020, has ultimately considered the plea raised by the appellant/writ petitioner and rejected the said writ petition through the impugned order. 4. Heard Mr.A.R.Suresh, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr.J.C.Durairaj, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. Mr.A.R.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner, by relying upon G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department dated 10.12.2014, where, in paragraph 6, the following clarification has been given:6/ nkw;go jpUj;jk; btspapl;l gpd;du;. 23/08/2005 Kjy; 03/05/2010 tiu cs;s ,ilg;gl;l fhy';fspy; tpz;zg;g ehspy; 18 taJ g{h;j;jp Mfhky; fUiz mog;gilapy; gzp epakzk; nfhhp fhj;jpUg;gtu;fSf;Fk; fPH;f;fz;lthW guprPypf;fyhk; vdt[k; bjspt[iufs; tH';fp Miz btspaplg;gLfpwJ:-“23/08/2005 Kjy; 03/05/2010 tiu fUiz mog;gilapy; gzp epakdk; ntz;o tpz;zg;gk; mspj;jth;fs; fUiz mog;gilapyhd gzp epakdj;jpw;fhd FWk taJj; jFjp jtpu. midj;J gpw jFjpfis gzpnfhhpa tpz;zg;g ehspYk;. FWk taJj; jFjp kl;Lk; (18 Mz;Lfs; epiwt[) gzp epakd ehspYk; epiwt[ bra;jpUe;jhy; nghJkhdjhf fUjg;gl ntz;Lk;/” Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2970 of 2025and submits that, those who have made applications between 23.08.2005 and 03.05.2010, even though have not reached the minimum age or completed the minimum age, their applications could be taken into account or considered after completion of 18 years of age, that is, after becoming major and therefore, since an application had been given only during the said period, even though the appellant, for whom such compassionate appointment is sought, did not complete the minimum age of 18 years at that time, after he attained majority, his application could be taken up based on the clarification that has been issued in paragraph 6 of G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 10.12.2014, was the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner.6. We are not impressed with the said submissions for the simple reason that, according to the said clarification, as has been quoted herein above, it is not only a criteria that he might not have completed 18 years of age, that is the minimum age or attained majority, but, also, on the date of the application, he must have the qualification to hold a post in Government services. It is not the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner that even at the time of making the application, he was holding that qualification, because, in the year 2006 or in 2007, when he made the applications, he was Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2970 of 2025less than 18 years of age, that is 13 years. Therefore, at that point of time, he did not have any qualification to hold a post in the Government services. Therefore, even that clarification made in G.O.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 10.12.2014, would not come to the rescue of the appellant/writ petitioner.7. Moreover, it is settled legal proposition that, compassionate appointment is only to bail out the family which is under indigent circumstances because of the sudden demise of the breadwinner of the family, that is the Head of the family, and for decades together, that cannot be automatically given to maintain the family in indigent circumstances and to consider the application submitted by the family member or the legal heir of the deceased employee to seek compassionate appointment after such long period. Moreover, at least two times, the applications, having been considered, were rejected and in respect of the rejection first time made in the year 2009 and second time made in the year 2014, which are only in respect of the status of the appellant/writ petitioner that he was minor at that time and therefore, the question of consideration does not arise, hence, it was rejected. Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2970 of 20258. Even the clarification issued makes it very clear that, on the date of application, he must have the qualification, which also, he has not projected before this Court as if he is qualified to hold a post in the Government services. Therefore, for all these reasons, the conclusion reached by the learned Judge through the impugned order cannot be found fault with or cannot be termed to be an erroneous one. 9. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment impugned herein. Resultantly, this writ appeal fails and hence, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.23908 of 2025 is closed. (R.S.K., J.) (S.S., J.) 23.10.2025 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking OrderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoIndex: Yes/No(drm)Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2970 of 2025To:1. The Chief Educational Officer Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur – 602 001.2. The District Educational Officer Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur – 602 001.3. The District Educational Officer Tiruttani 631 209.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2970 of 2025R. SURESH KUMAR, J.AND S. SOUNTHAR , J. (drm) W.A.No.2970 of 202523.10.2025Page 8 of 8