Allowed

K.Sudhakar v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC7 Nov 2023WP/28524/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Madras High Court quashed an order rejecting the petitioner's compassionate appointment application due to educational qualifications. The Court held that the old by-laws applicable on the application date (07.02.2011) required only 8th standard, which the petitioner met. The Court directed the respondent to reinstate the application and pass appropriate orders within twelv

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned order and direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the petitioner's application dated 07.02.2011 under old by-laws and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks.

K.Sudhakar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.28524 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.28524 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.28080 of 2023

K.Sudhakar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, (Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries) Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.The Commissioner, Milk Production & Dairy Development, Aavin Illam, No.3A, Nandhanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶12

3.The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

¶13

4.The General Manager, Villupuram & Cuddalore District Milk Producers Cooperative Union Ltd., Vazhuthareddy, Kandamanadi, (S.O) Villupuram & District.

¶14

5.The Deputy Registrar (Dairying) Villupuram Collectorate, Villupuram & District. ... Respondents

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/6

¶17

W.P.No.28524 of 2023

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 4^th respondent in Na.Ka.No.5915/PA2/2002 dated 31.10.2022 and to quash the same as illegal, inappropriate, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 4^th respondent to pass orders to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post for his present educational educational qualification in Villupuram District.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Elumalai

¶20

For Respondents : Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi Special Government Pleader for R1 and R3 Mr.I.John Arockiadas Standing Counsel for R2, R4 and R5

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is to quash the proceedings dated 31.10.2022 passed by the fourth respondent and to direct the fourth respondent to pass orders to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post for his present educational educational qualification in Villupuram District.

¶23

2.The petitioner's father Karunakaran, while in employment as a Factory Assistant in Villupuram & Cuddalore District Milk Producers Cooperative Union Ltd., Vazhuthareddy, Villupuram, died on 08.04.2010. On 07.02.2011, within one year from the death of his father, the petitioner had made an

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

2/6

¶26

W.P.No.28524 of 2023

¶27

application to the 3^rd respondent herein/District Collector, Villupuram, seeking for compassionate appointment. The acknowledgement for such an application dated 07.02.2011 has also been produced before this Court. This representation was followed by another representation on 17.03.2015 to the 2^nd respondent also. Since the representations were not considered in time, he had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.22137 of 2022 and by an order dated 24.08.2022, this Court had directed the Commissioner/Registrar, Milk Dairying, Madhavaram, Chennai, to consider the petitioner's representation, on its own merits, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. In this background, the impugned order has been passed, rejecting the petitioner's application stating that as per the special by-laws governing the 4^th respondent, the minimum educational qualification required for consideration of compassionate appointment is pass in 12^th or ITI.

¶28

3.The special by-laws relating to the service condition of the employees of all District Milk Producers Union came into effect from 01.04.2013. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had originally made an application to the District Collector on 07.02.2011 itself. Apparently, such an application has been made to a wrong authority. However, the fact that such an application was given, is not in dispute.

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

3/6

¶31

W.P.No.28524 of 2023

¶32

4.When the application was not considered in time, he had sent another representation on 17.03.2015 and has also approached the Court later ventilating his grievances. This Court had directed the 2^nd respondent herein to consider his representation within a time limit. Though, the petitioner had approached an authority who does not have jurisdiction to consider the representation, this Court has taken note of the fact that he has made an application seeking for compassionate appointment and that his date of making an application can be taken as 07.02.2011. However, on 17.03.2015, he had also sent a representation to the 2^nd respondent herein. If his original date of application is taken as 07.02.2011, the old by-laws of the Society would apply.

¶33

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the old bylaws i.e., prior to 01.04.2014, the minimum educational qualification required for grant of compassionate appointment is a pass 8^th standard. The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent also ratified this position. If that be so, the petitioner, who had passed 8^th standard as on 07.02.2011, had met the minimum educational qualification required for consideration for compassionate appointment. As such the respondents can be directed to consider his application on basis of his qualification as on 07.02.2011.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

4/6

¶36

W.P.No.28524 of 2023

¶37

5.In the light of the observations and findings, the impugned order dated 31.10.2022 is quashed. Subsequently, there shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent herein to reconsider the writ petitioner's application dated 07.02.2011 and by applying the old by-laws prescribing a pass in 8^th standard as a minimum qualification for consideration, shall pass appropriate orders, for grant of appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner to any post for which he may be eligible. Such an order shall be passed, atleast within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

6.This writ petition stands allowed with the above directions. No Costs.

¶39

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶40

07.11.2023

¶41

Index:Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes ssr

¶42

¶43

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, (Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries) Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5/6

W.P.No.28524 of 2023

M.S.RAMESH,J.

ssr

2.The Commissioner,

¶50

Milk Production & Dairy Development, Aavin Illam, No.3A, Nandhanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶51

3.The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

¶52

4.The General Manager, Villupuram & Cuddalore District Milk Producers Cooperative Union Ltd., Vazhuthareddy, Kandamanadi, (S.O) Villupuram & District.

¶53

5.The Deputy Registrar (Dairying) Villupuram Collectorate, Villupuram & District.

¶54

W.P.No.28524 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.28080 of 2023

¶55

07.11.2023

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

6/6

K.Sudhakar v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sudhakar v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Jamil Ahamad Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Mr. W.Benyamin Vs The Director

A.Rajasekar Vs The Secretary to Government

K.Parvathy Vs The Secretary to Government of TamilNadu

P.S.Muralidharan (6913) Vs The Commissioner of Police

P.Kathiresan Vs State of Tamil Nadu