C. Manikandan vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

K. Chandru, J.—The writ petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking for a direction to the Respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground pursuant to the representation dated 09.08.2009. A copy of such representation is found in the type set of papers, wherein the Petitioner has stated that his father who was working as Artisan Grade-I in the third Respondent college expired on 08.09.2000 leaving the Petitioner's mother and the Petitioner and two other young sisters. At the time of the death of his father, the Petitioner was 27 years old.

Being the elder son, he claimed that even before the death of his father, three employees children were given appointment on compassionate ground. Subsequently during February 2000, the Petitioner along with four other candidates went for selection and their certificates were verified.

Though the third Respondent college promised for employment, it was not given. He also claimed that the legal heirs of persons who died in the year 1998, 1999 and 2003 were given appointment. The Petitioner was not given appointment and hence he requested appointment on compassionate grounds.

When the matter came on 23.12.2009, this Court ordered notice of motion. On such notice, on behalf of the Respondents 3 and 4, a counter affidavit dated 18.10.2010 was filed. In the counter affidavit, in paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 it was averred as follows;

The Petitioner was aged 27 then. He was not a dependent of his father at the time of death. It is understood that the Petitioner is gainfully employed and he got married. The Petitioner's family is reportedly well off and not in penury.

It was also found that either the Petitioner nor members of his family were in any state of penury Hence, this Respondent did not provide him with employment on compassionate grounds. Other 3 persons namely M. Kaleeswari, K. Thamilselvi and S. Darlin Vijayarani, the wives of the deceased employees, were given employment on compassionate grounds taking into account of their financial position and their family background.

He and his family are found financially well off. There is no immediate help required for their sustenance. Compassionate employment is not an automatic right particularly in a private college like this Respondent, but depends upon various factors like the time of appointment and financial status of the applicant and his family.

The Petitioner had filed rejoinder, dated 21.10.2010 denying that he was gainfully employed.

Since the third Respondent is a private college and in order to enforce a claim on compassionate ground, the Petitioner was directed to produce any proof that claim of compassionate appointment is available in the college.

Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner accordingly produced a proceeding of the Director of Technical Education, Chennai dated 03.01.1989. It is only a set of guidelines issued by the Director of Technical Education to various Government aid colleges, wherein in para 15 under the caption of compassionate appointment, it is stated that even for private employment, if any person dies in harness, the legal heirs can be provided employment in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 2812 Education Department, dated 29.12.1981 and appropriate representation should be forwarded to the Government in the proforma.

Though the Petitioner contended that this is a scheme framed by the Government and the private colleges which are aided are bound by the same, this Court is not satisfied with the existence of a binding scheme. In any event having regard to the stand taken by the Respondents, this Court is not inclined to countenance the prayer made by the Petitioner, especially when the Respondents 3 and 4 are private colleges. Even assuming that it is a Government recognised institution, it is necessary to take notice of the two decision of the Supreme Court which may have baring on the present case.

In the decision reported in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar and another, , it was pointed out that the High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointment on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplates such appointment.

In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , it was noted that as a rule in public service, appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of application and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely on exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.

In the light of the same, the writ petition is misconceived and accordingly it stands dismissed. No costs.