Allowed

Govt. of Tamilnadu v. K.Jenkins

Madras HC15 Feb 2019WA/294/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the intra-court appeal, holding that a candidate given compassionate appointment cannot demand a higher post based on their technical qualification. The earlier order directing the appellants to consider the respondent for a higher post was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the order dated 07.04.2014 was set aside; the writ petition was dismissed.

Govt. of Tamilnadu Vs K.Jenkins — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.02.2019

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶4

W.A. No. 294 of 2016 and C.M.P. No. 4664 of 2016

¶5

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu

¶6

Rep by Secretary to the Government

¶7

Rural Development Department

¶8

Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

¶9

2.The Director of Rural Development Panagal Building, Saidapet Chennai – 15.

¶10

3.The District Collector Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶11

... Appellants/ Respondents Vs. K.Jenkins .. Respondent/ Petitioner

¶12

Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 07.04.2014 made in W.P. No. 7582 of 2007, filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order in Memo. O.Mu.No.2742/2000, dated 8.3.2000 on the file of third respondent, quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint him as Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer in consideration of his technical qualification of B.E. Degree.

¶13

For Appellants : Mrs.A.Sri Jayanthi Special Government Pleader

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.D.Aravindan

¶15

J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.)

¶16

The respondent was given compassionate appointment by the appellants as Junior Assistant. Thereafter, the respondent submitted a representation for appointing him to the post of Junior Engineer, taking into account his educational qualification. The said request was negatived

¶17

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

¶18

by order dated 08.03.2000 on the file of the District Collector at Coimbatore. The order was challenged before the writ court. The learned Single Judge directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer, taking into account his qualification. The said order is put in issue in this intra court appeal.

¶19

2.We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶20

3.The respondent was given appointment, taking into account his indigent status, consequent to the death of his father, who was an employee of Sultanpettai Panchayat Union, Coimbatore. The respondent was given appointment as Junior Assistant at Avinashi Panchayat by order dated 06.08.1996. The respondent appears to have made a representation on 21.02.2000 to give him appointment in the post of Junior Engineer. This request was rejected, which according to us rightly by the District Collector.

¶21

4.The learned Single Judge proceeded as if the application for compassionate appointment should be processed, taking into account the particular qualification possessed by the respondent. The higher qualification possessed by the candidate has no bearing on compassionate appointment.

¶22

5.Though he was in possession of higher qualification making him eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer, the respondent was given only the post of Junior Assistant taking into account the scheme for compassionate appointment. There is no right to claim a higher post when the compassionate appointment is given. This fundamental aspect with regard to the compassionate appointment was not considered by the learned Single Judge. We are therefore of the view that the appellants must succeed.

¶23

6.The order dated 07.04.2014 is set aside. The writ petition in W.P. No. 7582 of 2005 is dismissed.

¶24

7.In the upshot, we allow the intra court appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

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

¶28

maya

¶29

¶30

1.The Secretary to the Government Rural Development Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2.The Director of Rural Development Panagal Building, Saidapet Chennai – 15. 3.The District Collector Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. +1 cc to Government Pleader SR.NO. 14638 W.A. No. 294 of 2016

¶31

A.SK(03/04/2019)

¶32

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

Govt. of Tamilnadu v. K.Jenkins

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govt. of Tamilnadu v. K.Jenkins

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Ayyanar Vs the Govt of Tamil Nadu

Hilda Mercy Vs Teachers Rcruitment Board

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs M.Dhinakaran (Died)

Pappammal@Veerammal Vs the Commissioner of Police

V.Kolanji Vs The Secretary to Government

P.Chandramurthy Vs the Secretary to Government