Gayathri. K v. The Executive Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.07.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.12984 and 12985 of 2024 K.Gayathri

...Petitioner

Vs The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Palayanchalai Kumarasamy Temple, Tirunelveli.

... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order issued by the respondent dated 18.06.2024, quash the same and consequently directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner in any suitable job in the respondent Temple or any other Temple under the control of the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.R.M.Arun Swaminathan For Respondent : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader 1/5

O R D E R

Heard Mr.R.M.Arun Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the order of the respondent dated 18.06.2024 and with a consequential direction to the respondent to appoint the petitioner in any suitable job in the respondent Temple or any other Temple under the control of the respondent.

3. Mr.R.M.Arun Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's application has not been considered by the respondent. Some of the reasons stated in the impugned order for rejecting the application of the petitioner is that the application has been filed after three years from the date of death of the petitioner's father. It is further stated that as per the rules, the maximum age for getting compassionate appointment would be 35 years and the petitioner has crossed the maximum age. It is further stated the petitioner's family does 2/5

not suffer from penury and hence the question of compassionate appointment does not arise.

4. Earlier, the very same petitioner has filed W.P.(MD)No.5530 of 2024 seeking direction against the respondents therein to consider her application for compassionate appointment. In the impugned order, it is stated that in the earlier Writ Petition the necessary party namely the Commissioner of HR and CE, who is the appointing authority has not been impleaded as a party. Now after 17 years, even the petitioner has not produced any integrity certificate and the petitioner has solely depended upon the income of the father and the family is unable to maintain themselves except by giving any appointment to the petitioner under compassionate ground, till now.

5. In the opinion of the respondent, the petitioner's economical status does not deserve the compassionate appointment. Hence, I do not find any reasons to be interfered with.

3/5

6. In view of the above stated reasons, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

04.07.2024 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr To:

The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Palayanchalai Kumarasamy Temple, Tirunelveli.

4/5

R.N.MANJULA, J.

Nsr 04.07.2024 5/5