P.Syed Thurap Sulaiman v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Government Agricultural Department Secretariat, Chennai-92

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12.6.2009 CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.2842 OF 2007 (T)(O.A.No.408 of 2001)P.Syed Thurap Sulaiman .. Petitioner vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Government Agricultural Department Secretariat, Chennai-92. The Director of Agriculture Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.. RespondentsUpon transfer OA has been renumbered as Writ Petition filedunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ ofCertiorari to call for the records and set aside the order of thefirst respondent passed in letter No.17699/VaeNee4/2000-2Agriculture Department dated 3.10.2000 and direct the respondents toappoint the petitioner herein on compassionate grounds as a JuniorAssistant in the Agriculture Department or any office subordinate tothat Department. For petitioner : Mr.S.Vadivelu For respondents : Mr.V.Arun Additional Government PleaderO R D E RThis writ petition has been filed praying for a writ ofCertiorari to call for the records and to set aside the order of thefirst respondent passed in letter No.17699/VaeNee4/2000-2,Agriculture Department, dated 3.10.2000 and to direct therespondents to appoint the petitioner herein on compassionate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ grounds, as a Junior Assistant in the Agriculture Department or inany office subordinate to that Department. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner's father M.PeerMohamed had been employed as a watchman in the AgriculturalExtension Centre, Alwarkurichi, Tirunelveli District. He had died inharness, on 12.7.1986. 3. The petitioner's mother is an illiterate. The petitioner wasa minor aged about 10 years at the time of the death of his father.The petitioner had passed his Higher Secondary Examinations in theyear, 1995. The petitioner's mother had made a representation to thesecond respondent, on 10.1.1995, for appointing the petitioner oncompassionate grounds, since his sisters did not possess therequired qualifications. The petitioner had also applied forappointment on compassionate grounds to the second respondent, on13.7.1996, enclosing a 'No Objection Certificate' from his sisters.However, the first respondent had rejected the request of thepetitioner for an appointment on compassionate grounds by theimpugned letter, dated 3.10.2000, without applying his mind. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that the impugned letter of the first respondent,dated 3.10.2000, is arbitrary and illegal. The first respondent hadpassed the impugned order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner,even though the family of the petitioner has been indigentcircumstances and the petitioner is fully qualified for beingappointed on compassionate grounds. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader forthe respondents had submitted that the petitioner was a minor, agedabout 10 years, at the time of the death of his father, on12.7.1986. The representation for compassionate appointment had beenmade after nearly 12 years from the date of the death of theGovernment servant. In such circumstances, the relief sought for bythe petitioner cannot be granted. 6. The following are some of the recent decisions relating toappointments on compassionate grounds.5.1. 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 general rulethat recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner,providing opportunity to all eligible persons tocompete and participate in the selection process. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Such appointments are required to be made on thebasis of open invitation of applications andmerit. 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 claim forcompassionate appointment and the right, if any,is traceable only to the scheme, executiveinstructions, rules, etc. framed by the employerin the matter of providing employment oncompassionate grounds. There is no right ofwhatsoever nature to claim compassionateappointment on any ground other than the one, ifany, conferred by the employer by way of a schemeor instructions, as the case may be.5.2. In I.G.(Karmik) and others Vs. PrahaladMani Tripathi (2007(6) SCC 162), the SupremeCourt had held that compassionate appointmentmust be in consonance with the Constitutionalscheme of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and16 of the Constitution of India.5.3. In Union Bank of India and others Vs.M.T.Latheesh (2006(7) SCC 350), the Supreme Courthad held that grant of employment oncompassionate grounds in all cases, would shut the door foremployment to the increasing number of unemployedyouth. 5.4. In Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal FieldLtd., and others (2007(8) SCC 549), the SupremeCourt had recognised the fact that appointment oncompassionate grounds are an exception to Article16(1) of the Constitution of India. 5.5. In State Bank of India and others Vs.Jaspal Kaur (2007(9) SCC 571), the Supreme Courthad held that a major criterion while appointinga person on compassionate grounds should be thefinancial condition of the family of the deceasedperson. The appointment under the scheme ofcompassionate appointment is at the discretion ofthe authority concerned. The discretion is to beexercised keeping in view the scheme and theobject and the rationale behind it. However, it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 5.6. "In H.Anwar Basha Vs. The RegistrarGeneral, Madras High Court (2008 (3) CTC 785), aDivision Bench of this Court had held that theobject of compassionate appointment is tomitigate the sufferings of the bereaved family ofthe Government servant who had died in harnessleaving his family in indigent circumstances.7. Considering submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the parties concerned, it is clear that the requestfor appointment on compassionate grounds had been made by thepetitioner, belatedly, after nearly 12 years from the date of thedeath of his father. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing on behalf of the parties concerned and in view of thedecisions rendered by the Courts of law and on a perusal of therecords available before this Court, this Court is of the consideredview that the request of the petitioner for appointment oncompassionate grounds cannot be entertained by the respondents afternearly 12 years from the death of the petitioner's father, who haddied in harness, on 12.7.1986, while in service. The purpose forwhich such appointments are made by relaxing the rules applicable tothe regular process of recruitment would be defeated if the requestof the petitioner is entertained after the lapse of many years. Thescheme for compassionate appointment has been formulated to help thefamily of the deceased Government servant to tide over the crisisarising due to the sudden death of the breadwinner of the family.If the members of the family are found to be in indigentcircumstances one of the members of the family of the deceasedGovernment servant would be given an appointment on compassionategrounds, in accordance with the norms prescribed in that regard.However, such appointments can be made only in accordance with therules framed for the said purpose and in accordance with theGovernment orders applicable to such appointments. 9. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not in a positionto show sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere withthe impugned order passed by the first respondent rejecting therequest of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.It is clear that the appointments on compassionate grounds are madeonly to help the family in distress due to the sudden death of thebreadwinner of the family, and if the members of the family arefound to be in indigent circumstances. Such appointments are made tohelp the family to tide over the immediate crisis arising due to thedeath of an earning member of the family. It cannot be considered asan avenue for employment in the normal course. In view of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ decisions rendered by the various courts of law, the belated requestof the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds does notdeserve serious consideration, at this late stage. In such view ofthe matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, itis dismissed. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarlanTo1. The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Department Secretariat, Chennai-92. The Director of Agriculture Chepauk, Chennai-600 005+1cc to Mr.S.Vadivelu,Advocate Sr 22793DM(CO)km/23.6.Writ Petition No.2842 OF 2007 (T)(O.A.No.408 of 2001)