P.Chitra v. The Chief Engineer,Tamilnadu Electricity Board & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 04-02-2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENW.P.No.5433 of 2006P.Chitra.. Petitioner.Versus1.The Chief Engineer,Tamilnadu Electricity Board,No.800, Anna Salai,Mount Road, Chennai-600 002.2.Superintending Engineer,Coimbatore Electricity DistributionCircle/South,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,Coimbatore-12... Respondents.Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondentsto appoint the petitioner in any one of the posts oncompassionate ground which the petitioner was qualified to beappointed. For Petitioner: Mr.R.Ganesan For Respondents: Mr.M.VaidyanathanO R D E RThis writ petition has been filed by the petitioner prayingfor a Writ of Mandamus to provide her, with an appointment oncompassionate ground. 2. The petitioner has stated that her late husband, Perumal,had been appointed, as a Lineman in the Tamilnadu ElectricityBoard, in the year, 1985. While so, he had died in harness, on15.5.2002, while he was in service, due to an accident.Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the second respondentfor appointment on compassionate ground, on 14.5.2004. However,the second respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner,by an order, dated 9.8.2004, for the reason that she had notpassed 8th standard. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted thateven if the petitioner is not qualified for being appointed inany one of the higher posts, as alleged by the second respondent,in his impugned order, dated 9.8.2004, the petitioner could be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointed, as an Office Assistant or a Sweeper for which post, itwould be sufficient if the petitioner knows to read and write.4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe respondents had submitted that an appointment oncompassionate ground can be made only for Class III posts, forwhich the minimum qualification is a pass in 8th standard. Sincethe petitioner does not possess such a qualification she is noteligible for being appointed on compassionate ground. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal ofthe records available, this Court is of the considered view thatthe petitioner is not entitled to be appointed on compassionateground, as she does not possess the required qualification forsuch appointment. Since an appointment on compassionate groundcan only be made in Class III posts, as per the available Schemefor such appointments and as the basic qualification prescribedfor such appointments is a pass in 8th standard, the petitioner isnot entitled to claim that she should atleast be appointed,either as an Office Assistant, or as a Sweeper. 6. Further, in view of the various decisions of the Courtsof law, it is clear that an appointment on compassionate groundcannot be claimed, as a matter of right and that it is anexception to the regular rules of recruitment. The viewsexpressed by the Courts of law could be of relevance in decidingthe present case. The following are some of the recent decisionsrelating to appointment on compassionate ground:6.1. In State Bank of India andanother Vs. Somvir Singh (2007 (4) SCC 778),the Supreme Court had held thatappointment on compassionate grounds is anexception carved out to the generalrule that recruitment to public servicesis to be made in a transparent and accountablemanner, providing opportunity to all eligiblepersons to compete and participate in theselection process. Such appointments arerequired to be made on the basis of openinvitation of applications and merit.Dependants of employees who had died inharness do not have any special or additionalclaim to public services other than the oneconferred, if any, by the employer. The claimfor compassionate appointment and the right,if any, is traceable only to the scheme,executive instructions, rules, etc. framed bythe employer in the matter of providingemployment on compassionate grounds. There isno right of whatsoever nature to claim https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compassionate appointment on any ground otherthan the one, if any, conferred by theemployer by way of a scheme or instructions,as the case may be.6.2. In I.G.(Karmik) and others Vs.Prahalad Mani Tripathi (2007(6) SCC 162), theSupreme Court had held that compassionateappointment must be in consonance with theConstitutional scheme of equality enshrined inArticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution ofIndia.6.3. In Union Bank of India and others Vs.M.T.Latheesh (2006(7) SCC 350), the SupremeCourt had held that grant of employment oncompassionate grounds in all cases, would shutthe door for employment to the increasingnumber of unemployed youth. 6.4. In Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal FieldLtd., and others (2007(8) SCC 549), theSupreme Court had recognised the fact thatappointment on compassionate grounds are anexception to Article 16(1) of the Constitutionof India. 6.5. In State Bank of India and others Vs.Jaspal Kaur (2007(9) SCC 571), the SupremeCourt had held that a major criterion whileappointing a person on compassionate groundsshould be the financial condition of thefamily of the deceased person. The appointmentunder the scheme of compassionate appointmentis at the discretion of the authorityconcerned. The discretion is to be exercisedkeeping in view the scheme and the object andthe rationale behind it. However, it cannotbe claimed as a matter of right. 6.6. In Andhra Pradesh State RoadTransport Corporation, Musheerabad and othersVs. Sarvarunnisa Begum (2008 (3) SCC 402) theSupreme Court, quoting with approval thedecision made in Umesh Kumar Nagpal V. Stateof Haryana (1994 (4) SCC 138), had held thatit has been time and again held thatcompassionate appointments would be given tothe dependants of the deceased who had died inharness, to get over the difficulties on thedeath of the bread earner and that it cannotbe claimed as a matter of right. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.7. "In H.Anwar Basha Vs. The RegistrarGeneral, Madras High Court (2008 (3) CTC 785),a Division Bench of this Court had held thatthe object of compassionate appointment is tomitigate the sufferings of the bereaved familyof the Government servant who had died inharness leaving his family in indigentcircumstances. 7. From the above decisions, it is clear that compassionateappointments are made in order to help the family in distress,due to the sudden death of its bread winner. However, suchappointments are not to be made, as a matter of course, withoutverification of the relevant circumstances existing in the familyof the deceased employee. Nor can it be made, without followingthe rules and regulations applicable to such employment. Further,employment on the compassionate ground cannot be claimed, as amatter of right, since, such appointments are an exception to theusual procedures followed in making regular appointments. In suchcircumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, asdevoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.Registrarcsh To1.The Chief Engineer,Tamilnadu Electricity Board,No.800, Anna Salai,Mount Road, Chennai-600 002.2.The Superintending Engineer,Coimbatore Electricity DistributionCircle/South,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,Coimbatore-12.W.P.No.5433 of 2006GV(CO)EM/26.2.10