Allowed

M.Suresh v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC4 Jun 2026WP/18854/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim. The petitioner, an adopted son of a deceased employee, was denied appointment for lack of an adoption deed. The court found evidence of adoption via school certificates and ration cards, held the rejection incorrect, quashed the order, and remitted the matter for inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the 2nd respondent for inquiry and disposal within 6 weeks.

M.Suresh Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 18854 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

WP No. 18854 of 2026

M.Suresh

..Petitioner(s)

The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary To Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009

¶11

The Collector Erode, Erode District.

¶12

The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Erode, Erode District.

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶15

India seeking writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to

¶16

the impugned order of the second respondent in Na.Ka. No.1866/2023/A5 dated

¶17

25.09.2025 and quash the same.

¶18

For Petitioner(s): Mr. P.Manoj Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr. K.Sathish Government Advocate

¶19

Page1 of 6

¶20

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

¶21

WP No. 18854 of 2026

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶24

“To call for the records relating to the impugned order of

¶25

the second respondent in Na.Ka. No.1866/2023/A5 dated 25.09.2025 and quash the same.”

¶26

The petitioner is an adopted son of one Mr.Madhan (Hostel Worker, Government Tribal Residential Primary School, Kuthialathur), who died in harness on 29.04.2014, leaving the family in an indigent circumstances. They belong to Scheduled Tribe community. The petitioner, who has completed B.Com (Computer Application) had applied for compassionate appointment, along with no objection certificates from the other legal heirs of the said Madhan, namely, wife Rajammal and daughter Uma.

¶27

An enquiry was conducted by the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Sathiamangalam. Thereafter, the District Collector, Erode rejected the petitioner's claim vide impugned order dated 25.09.2025 on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the adoption deed. Aggrieved thus, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

__________ Page2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

WP No. 18854 of 2026

¶31

Heard the learned counsels on the either side and perused the records. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the adoption was as per their customary practice and that documents have been produced to prove that the deceased was his adoptive father.

¶32

A perusal of the records would show that the wife and the daughter of

¶33

the deceased have given their no objection for the petitioner to get compassionate appointment. That apart, the deceased has been shown as the father of the petitioner in school certificates, ration card etc., Therefore, there is sufficient documents and proof to substantiate the petitioner’s claim that he is the adopted son of the deceased Government employee. In these circumstances, the rejection on the ground that the adoption deed has not been produced may not be correct.

¶34

Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the file of the 2^nd respondent, who shall take note of the above facts and if necessary shall call the wife and daughter of the deceased Madhan for an enquiry and thereafter pass orders. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

__________ Page3 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

WP No. 18854 of 2026

¶38

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶39

04-06-2026

¶40

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶41

KAN

¶42

__________ Page4 of 6

¶43

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

¶44

WP No. 18854 of 2026

¶45

¶46

The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary To Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009

¶47

The Collector Erode, Erode District.

¶48

The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Erode, Erode District.

¶49

__________ Page5 of 6

¶50

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

WP No. 18854 of 2026

P.T.ASHA, J.

KAN

WP No. 18854 of 2026

¶55

04-06-2026

¶56

__________ Page6 of 6

¶57

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

M.Suresh v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Suresh v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

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

M.Munisamy Vs The Managing Director

T.Panneerselvam Vs the Managing Director

P.Raveendaran Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

K.A. Sagaya Jayaraj Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

T.Palanisamy Vs the Commissioner

N.Sathya Vs The Secretary to Government