Allowed

R.Mohan v. the Joint Director of School

Madras HC4 Mar 2014WP/8553/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge允许的 Writ Petition before the Madras High Court where the Court, following a Division Bench judgment, held that the non-eldest son is eligible for compassionate appointment. It directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner to a suitable post within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant or any other suitable post within four weeks.

R.Mohan Vs the Joint Director of School — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.03.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI

¶5

W.P.No.8553 of 2007 (OA.No.4099 of 2002)

R.Mohan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Director of School Education (personnel) College Road, Chennai-6.

¶10

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6.

¶11

3.The Secretary to Government, Education Department (Schools), Fort St.George, Chennai-9. .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition, having been transferred from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4099 of 2002, is filed to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated September 1999 issued in the reference number Na.Ka.No.58820/J4/1999 and to quash the same and to direct the respondent to appoint the applicant in the eligible post on compassionate ground.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukannu

¶14

For Respondents : M/s.E.Rani Selvam, AGP O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner, who is denied compassionate appointment on the sole ground that he is not the eldest son of the deceased employee, is now before this Court. The petitioner's father died on 11.08.1988 in harness while he was in service. The petitioner immediately applied for compassionate appointment within two months. The reading of the averments raised in the original application would reveal that the petitioner applied for the post of teacher in the place of his father, however his willingness was sought for different posts and his name was recommended by District Educational Officer, Coimabtore. Whereas the first respondent rejected the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment mainly on the ground that he was not the eldest child in the family.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

This issue is directly answered by the Division Bench of our High Court in the judgment reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 1 State of Tamil Nadu rep by Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai and others V. R.Nagamani and another wherein the Division Bench of this Court is of the view that "the Scheme of compassionate appointment is one made for social benefit to the poor and indigent families. So, while considering the same, whenever it is possible, a construction should be adopted which preserves the benefit and any construction which frustrates the benefit must be eschewed. In the facts of this case, we are of the view that the word 'or' must be construed disjunctively and we are of the opinion that the choice to apply for compassionate appointment is given either to the senior most eligible person or any qualified person in the family of the deceased".

¶18

Even the impugned order says that the petitioner is otherwise qualified for compassionate appointment to the post of Junior Assistant. Inspite of the same, job opportunity was denied to the petitioner herein, which compelled him to approach the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by way of original application in OA.No.4099 of 2002 which stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as WP.No.8553 of 2007.

¶19

Applying the view of the Division Bench of this Court cited supra and having regard to the eligibility of the petitioner, this Court directs the respondents to afford appointment to the petitioner either to the post of Junior Assistant or any other suitable post as per the rules and regulations and administrative instructions of the department, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly ordered. No costs.

¶20

Sd/Deputy Registrar(Judicial) 27.3.2014

/True Copy/

Sub Asst.Registrar

tsh

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

¶26

1.The Joint Director of School Education (personnel) College Road, Chennai-6.

¶27

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6.

¶28

3.The Secretary to Government, Education Department (Schools), Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.R.Muthukkannu, Advocate Sr 10601 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 11043

¶30

RSY(CO)
km/28.3.
WP.No.8553 of 2007

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Mohan v. the Joint Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Mohan v. the Joint Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Thangapalam, Vs the Executive Engineer

Global Academy for Management, Vs the Director

A.Kadarkarai Vs the Special Officer

N.Muniraman Vs the Director of Sericulture

K.Balasubramanian Vs the District Collector

R.Sakthivel Vs the Secretary