Disposed

P.Manikandan v. The Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC20 Feb 2020WP(MD)/1330/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment due to lack of minimum educational qualifications but granted him liberty to make a fresh representation seeking relaxation of rules by the appropriate authority.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to make a fresh representation to the second respondent seeking relaxation of educational qualification rules; petition closed.

P.Manikandan Vs The Secretary to Govt. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.02.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.1330 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.1078 of 2020

¶7

P.Manikandan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶10

2.The Director General, Office of the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Ministry of Culture, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

¶11

3.The Superintending Archaeologist, Indian Archeology Department, St.George Fort, Chennai-9.

¶12

4.The Senior Conservation Assistant, Indian Archeology Department, Senior Assistant Maintaining Division, Periyakovil Campus, Thanjavur. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in F.No.1413/2019-Adm-II Government of India, Archaeological Survey of India dated 08.11.2019 passed by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to provide appropriate job on the basis of compassionate ground.

¶14

For Petitioner: Mr.S.A.Ajmalkhan

¶15

For R2 to R4 : Mr.V.Kathirvelu Assistant Solicitor General assisted by Mr.R.Rajaraman Central Government Standing Counsel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For R1 : Mr.R.Sethuraman, Special Govt.Pleader

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

In view of the demise of the petitioner's father on 09.02.2000, who was employed in the second respondent office, representations were given by the petitioner and his mother, seeking for appointment on compassionate grounds. The second respondent, through the impugned order dated 08.11.2019, had rejected the petitioner's request on the ground that he does not possess the required educational qualification as per the rules.

¶19

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents ought to have considered his candidature and given an appointment in conformity with the qualifications, which he possessed viz., 8^th Std., pass.

¶20

3.The learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 would submit that the scheme for compassionate appointment, though entitles the petitioner to seek for an appointment, he does not possess the required qualification even for the minimum post of Multi-Tasking Staff, which requires for a pass in the Matriculation Examination or its equivalent. Since the petitioner has failed in his 9^th Std., examination, there are no posts available in the second respondent/department, which would qualify him for consideration on the strength of his educational qualification.

¶21

4.The scheme for compassionate appointment is a welfare scheme and the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court have consistently held that such welfare scheme should be viewed pragmatically and liberally. However, such consideration can only be within the parameters of the regulations. In the instant case, though the scheme provides for compassionate appointment, the fact remains that the minimum post to which the compassionate appointment can be considered would be the Multi-Tasking Staff (Protection and care of Monument/Heritage Sites) and the relevant qualification prescribed for that post is a pass in the Matriculation examination or its equivalent. When the petitioner does not possess the required educational qualification for the minimum post in the second respondent/Department, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue a mandamus, sought for in the present writ petition.

¶22

5.At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 6 of the Ministry of Culture, Archaeological Survey of India (Group 'C' Non-Gazetted Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2014, which empowers the Central Government to relax any of the provisions of these rules, in respect of any class or category of persons, in its discretion. The petitioner would submit that he is willing to take the minimum post in the Department. In case, the second respondent is of the view that the prescribed educational qualification can be relaxed for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ purpose of accommodating the petitioner to any of the posts in their Department, such a lenient consideration may be extended to

¶23

¶24

the petitioner. In this connection, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a fresh representation to the second respondent in the lines indicated above and on receipt of such representation, the second respondent shall consider it as expeditiously as possible.

¶25

6.Granting such liberty, this Writ Petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Assistant Registrar (AD-I)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

¶30

1.The Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶31

2.The Director General, Office of the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Ministry of Culture, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

¶32

3.The Superintending Archaeologist, Indian Archeology Department, St.George Fort, Chennai-9.

¶33

4.The Senior Conservation Assistant, Indian Archeology Department, Senior Assistant Maintaining Division, Periyakovil Campus, Thanjavur.

¶34

+2 CC to M/s.R.RAJARAMAN, Advocate ( SR-7468[F] dated 21/02/2020 ) +1 CC to M/s.Special Govt.Pleader ( SR-7796[F] dated 24/02/2020 )

¶35

W.P.(MD).No.1330 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD).No.1078 of 2020 20.02.2020

¶36

¶37

SDS (11.03.2020) 3P-8C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Manikandan v. The Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Manikandan v. The Secretary to Govt.

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

Correspondent Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

T.Vijikumar Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corpn. Ltd.

G.Sasikumar Vs the Director of Collegiate Education

Ambika Vs The District Revenue Officer

S. Pannerselvam Vs the Managing Director

B.Banumathi Vs The Director