S.Neelavathi v. The State Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN Writ Petition No.8811 of 2025 Tmt.S.Neelavathi .. Petitioner Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home (Courts) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Registrar General, High Court Madras, Chennai 600 104.
3. The Principal District Judge/ Appointing Authority, Erode, Erode 638 011.
4. The Chief Administrative Officer, Principal District Court, Erode, Erode 638 011.
... Respondents 1/6
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the proceedings order No.309/2021 dated 24.02.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant/ Examiner from the date of initial appointment i.e., 24.02.2022 along with all backwages, continuity of service, seniority and other benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Ashok For Respondents : Mr.K.H.Ravikumar Government Advocate, for R1 Mr. S.Arjun Suresh, Standing Counsel, for RR2 to 4 ********
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) It is a rare case where the petitioner challenges the order appointing her on compassionate ground. The husband of the petitioner, who was working as Bench Clerk Grade II in the Judiciary, died of Covid2/6
19 on 30.05.2021. In order to alleviate the immediate difficulty that may arise to the family, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Bailiff and posted in the Principal District Court, Erode, in the existing vacancy. The petitioner accepted the appointment and joined duty.
2. In the year 2025, the petitioner chooses to challenge the appointment relying upon G.O.Ms.No.1499 dated 03.08.1989 under which, according to the petitioner, she should have been appointed to a higher post, since she was qualified to be appointed for the post of Examiner. By the time, the petitioner's husband died, G.O.Ms.No.18 was issued by the Government governing compassionate appointments as early as on 23.01.2020.
3. Under the said Government Order compensate appointments are to be made only to certain categories of posts that too in the existing vacancies. The posts cannot be created for the purposes of making compensate appointment. This was made clear by G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 23.01.2020. Therefore, the Principal District Judge had appointed the petitioner in the existing vacancy. The petitioner cannot, after issuance of 3/6
G.O.Ms.No.18, claim that she should have been appointed in a higher post where there was no vacancy.
4. Hence we see no reason to interfere with the order of the District Judge, the Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall no order as to costs.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) (G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 20.03.2025 jv Index: No Speaking order To
1. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home (Courts) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai9.
4/6
2. The Registrar General, High Court Madras, Chennai 600 104.
3. The Principal District Judge/ Appointing Authority, Erode, Erode 638 011.
4. The Chief Administrative Officer, Principal District Court, Erode, Erode 638 011.
5/6
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
(jv) Writ Petition No.8811 of 2025 20.03.2025 6/6