K.Suresh v. The State Rep. Secretary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ W.P.No.22197 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 K.Suresh ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The State represented The Secretary to Government, Department of Education, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.
3. The District Educational Officer, District Educational Office Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.
4. The Head Master, District Boys Higher Secondary School, Thittakudi, Cuddalore District.
... Respondents PRAYER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent made in Pa.Mu/No.11388/ A1/2004, dated 27.04.2006 and consequential proceedings made in O.Mu.No.1190/A1/2007, dated 18.05.2007 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj Government Advocate (Civil)
O R D E R
The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent made in Pa.Mu/No.11388/A1/2004, dated 27.04.2006 and consequential proceedings made in O.Mu.No.1190/A1/2007, dated 18.05.2007 and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground.
2. The petitioner's father was working as a Teacher in the fourth respondent School and he died on 04.02.2001 while he was in service. Within six months thereof, the petitioner made an application on 13.08.2001 for appointment as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground. He has passed +2 examination also. His request was also recommended by the fourth respondent to the third respondent. However, the application was kept in abeyance in view of ban on recruitment imposed by the Government. Thereafter, when it was considered, the petitioner has completed his graduation and his sister also got married. The respondents have rejected the application for compassionate appointment on the pretext that the petitioner was able to continue his study and qualify himself as a degree holder and that his sister got married, which shows that they are in affluent situation and therefore, the family does not require assistance of the Government.
3. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material placed before this Court.
4. Admittedly, when the family was in indigent circumstance immediately after demise of the head of the family, an application within a period of six months was made. In other words, it was made within a period of three years as required by the Rules. Secondly, the petitioner sought for appointment for the post of Junior Assistant appropriate to his qualification and he did not ask for higher post. On the date of application, his sister was not married and the entire family depended on the income of the head of the family. It is also found by the respondents that none of the family members were employed elsewhere even though they are qualified. It is also relevant to note that all the family members have given no objection for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground. Only because other qualified family members are available, it is not necessary that they shall make an application for compassionate appointment prevailing over the youngest member.
5. Therefore, the invention of the point that the sister of the petitioner got married and the petitioner has qualified over a period of time when the application was under consideration is not a ground for rejection of the same. The application should be considered on the basis of the prevailing conditions of the family on the date of application, immediately after demise of the Government employee. On that date, it is an admitted case that the family was in indigent circumstances and the petitioner and his family were requesting for compassionate ground appointment and that it was recommended by the fourth respondent
to the third respondent for favourable consideration. It is not the case of the respondent that the marriage of the sister was solemnized in an affluent manner and that the family is in good financial condition. The marriage could have been solemnized in a simple manner. In this country, there is no prohibition for poor people getting married nor it can construe that the family solemnizing the marriage shall be affluent. Unless materials are produced to prove that the family is not in indigent circumstance, the application shall be considered for compassionate ground appointment as per the prevailing conditions of the family on the date of application. Delay in considering the application and survival of the family till such time shall defeat the object of the Scheme.
The applicant could have completed his studies with the aid of scholarship given by Government or with the help of others. Payment of college fees may not be an appropriate criteria to measure the indigence of the family. Therefore, completing graduation during the pendency of the application will not debar a person for being considered on compassionate grounds. There shall be materials to make such a statement. Without any evidence for making such a statement, it is made for the purpose of rejection of the application. It shall be construed as such statements are made on conjectures and surmises. The rejection order is not supported by any material evidence to show that the family is not in indigent circumstance and that it does not require any assistance from the Government by way of compassionate appointment.
6. Only because the application is delayed, none can expect that the family should not survive. To eke out their livelihood, the family members may engage themselves in petty works and earn meager sum, which will not preclude the family members insisting on the request to get compassionate appointment. Therefore, the rejection order on the basis of the conjectures and surmises is not sustainable and, accordingly, the same is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner taking into consideration the prevailing condition of the family and pass appropriate orders within a period of three
(3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar asi
To
1. The Secretary to Government, Department of Education, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.
3. The District Educational Officer, District Educational Office Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.
4. The Head Master, District Boys Higher Secondary School, Thittakudi, Cuddalore District.
+1cc to Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, Advocate SR.No. 34499 +1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No. 34743 W.P.No.22197 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 VSN II(CO) B.VC(23.08.2021)