Madras High Court
M.Karpagavalli vs The Director General on 11 May, 2017
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.05.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.(MD)No.10529 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2013 M.Karpagavalli ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Director General Highways Department Chepauk, Chennai ? 600 005 2.The Superintending Engineer Highways Department Alagarkovil Road, Madurai ? 2 3.The Divisional Engineer (Projects) Highways Department, Madurai-2 ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned memorandum issued by the first respondent in his memorandum No. Nir 1(1)35486/2012, dated 11.02.2013 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the first respondent to provide appointment on compassionate ground as Assistant Draftsman in the light of the Memorandum No.7578/Ni5(3)/08, dated 02.07.2008 of the Chief Engineer (General) Highways Department, Chennai within the stipulated period. !For Appellant : Mr.K.Ponnaiah for M/S.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadhas, Govt. Advocate :ORDER
The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for records relating to the impugned memorandum No.Nir 1(1)35486/2012, dated 11.02.2013, issued by the first respondent, to quash the same and consequently to direct the first respondent to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground as Assistant Draftsman in the light of the Memorandum No.7578/Ni5(3)/08, dated 02.07.2008 of the Chief Engineer (General) Highways Department, Chennai, within a stipulated period.
2. The short facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner's husband was working at the office of the third respondent as a Blue Print Operator. While the petitioner's husband was in service, he died in harness on 11.04.2004 leaving behind the petitioner and two minor children aged about 2 years and 5 years respectively. The petitioner is having educational qualification of S.S.L.C (10th Standard). Thereafter, she acquired further qualification of a Certificate Course of Civil Draftsmanship. With these qualifications, she made an application, on 12.10.2004, to the respondent ? Department, seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Subsequently, the petitioner made further application requesting that her candidature may be considered for the post of Assistant Draftsman at the third respondent Office as she was having qualification of Civil Draftsmanship Course.
3. The respondent - Department having receipt of the petitioner's application had registered the same and kept her name at serial No.18 of the waiting list candidates for compassionate appointment to the post of Assistant Draftsman. In fact, a communication to that effect was also issued by the first respondent to the petitioner on 02.07.2008.
4. However, though the petitioner was placed under waiting list at serial No.18, for several years her name was not considered, but, suddenly on 11.02.2013, through the impugned order, the first respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner by stating a reason that the petitioner did not have the required qualification to the post of Assistant Draftsman and therefore, her application seeking compassionate appointment was rejected. Challenging the said order, dated 11.02.2013, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
5. Heard Mr.K.Ponnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.P.Krishadhas, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.
6. Mr.K.Ponnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has acquired the qualification of S.S.L.C. (10th Standard) and Certificate Course of Civil Draftsmanship and only based on such qualifications, her name was registered in the waiting list for offering appointment to the post of Assistant Draftsman on compassionate ground and proceedings to that effect was also issued, on 02.07.2008, by the Chief Engineer (General), Highways Department, Chennai which reads thus:
?ghh;itapy; fz;l fojj;Jld; mDg;gg;gl;l fUj;JUf;fs; ghprPyid bra;ag;gl;L tpz;zg;gjhuhpd; bgaiu cjtp tiuthsh; gjtpf;F gzp epakdj;jpw;fhd fhj;jpUg;nghh; KJepiyg;gl;oapy; thpir vz; (18)y; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. ,j;njh;tpy; fPH;fz;l rhd;wpjH;fs; ,j;Jld; jpUg;gp mDg;gg;LfpwJ. ,tw;iwg; bgw;Wf; bfhz;likf;F xg;g[if mspf;FkhW fz;fhzpg;g[ bghwpahsh; (beLQ;rhiy) jpl;lq;fs; tl;lk; kJiu nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;.
1.tiuthsh; rptpy; njh;r;rp g[utprd; rhd;W ? 0126352
2.gs;sp khw;Wr;rhd;wpjH; 94195 3.10k; tFg;g[ kjpg;bgz; rhd;W gjpt[ vz;.061907
4.,Ug;gplr;rhd;W
5.rhjpr;rhd;wpjH;.
m.fgPh; mfkJ jiyikg; bghwpahsh; (bghJ) beLQ;rhiy?
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that though the petitioner's name was registered in the waiting list at Serial No.18 and was moved forward, no offer of appointment was given. However, all of a sudden, now the impugned order, dated 11.02.2013, has been passed, wherein the first respondent has given a reason that the petitioner does not have the required qualification to hold the post of Assistant Draftsman.
8. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is upto the respondent - Department to decide on which post the petitioner can be appointed depending upon her educational qualification on compassionate ground. Suppose the Department does not have a particular post, an alternative suitable post can be offered to the petitioner by way of compassionate ground. As the petitioner has lost the sole breadwinner of the family i.e., her husband, it is very difficult for her to run the family with two minor children. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with and suitable directions may be issued to the respondent - Department to offer appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.
9. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that when a specific request was made by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment to the post of Assistant Draftsman, for which the petitioner claimed that she was having necessary qualification, her application was considered and her name was registered in the waiting list for compassionate appointment to the post of Assistant Draftsman at Serial No.18. But, when the turn came for the petitioner, it was found that she did not possess the required qualification to hold the post of Assistant Draftsman and therefore, her request could not be accepted and that is the reason for rejection of the petitioner's application. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the rejection was made only due to the specific request made by the petitioner that she can be considered for the post of Assistant Draftsman on compassionate ground based on her educational qualification.
10. The learned Government Advocate would also submit that had the petitioner opted for any other alternative job in Group ?C? and ?D? posts depending upon the qualification she is possessing, certainly her application could have been considered.
11. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
12. If at all any specific request has been made by the legal heir of a deceased Government servant, who died in harness, seeking compassionate appointment, it is open to the Department / Employer to decide such a request depending upon the availability of vacancies as well as the educational qualification of the applicant. It is not mandatory that in the case of compassionate appointment, only a particular post or position as has been requested by the applicant shall be offered to him / her.
13. In the case on hand, though the petitioner's application seeking for compassionate appointment to the post of Assistant Draftsman was taken on file and was registered and her request was kept pending in waiting list by giving Serial No.18 and once it is found that her qualification does not suitable to hold the said post, the next option available to the respondent - Department is to offer her any other alternative post, of course depending upon the availability of vacancies and also in commensurate with the educational qualification of the petitioner and if such an alternative post is offered to the petitioner, it is for the petitioner either to accept or decline it. Once the petitioner declined to accept the alternative appointment / post offered by the respondent - Department on compassionate ground depending upon the availability of vacancies, it is open to the respondent - Department to close the file as the petitioner was not ready and willing to accept the post offered to her, especially from any one of Group "C" and "D" posts on compassionate ground.
14. Appointments on compassionate ground are being provided so as to enable the legal heirs of the deceased Government servant to alleviate from the indigent circumstances and penuries situation due to his / her sudden demise. In order to tide over the situation like the situation in the present case, compassionate appointments are being made, wherein mostly age, educational qualification as well as the method of recruitment are dispensed with or relaxed. When such a claim of appointment on compassionate ground is made, the beneficiaries do not have any right to opt a particular post or position whatever be the educational qualification or otherwise possessing by the said applicant. Therefore, whenever application comes seeking for compassionate appointment, the employer must take it as only an application seeking compassionate appointment for any other suitable post available with the Department depending upon the educational qualification of the applicant.
15. For all these reasons, this Court feels that the reason adduced by the first respondent through the impugned order stating that the petitioner does not have the required qualification to hold the post of Assistant Draftsman is wholly unjustifiable and unsustainable. Therefore, this Court feels that the impugned order of the first respondent is liable to be interfered with and accordingly, the same is set aside.
16. In the result, i. The impugned order, dated 11.02.2013, passed by the first respondent is quashed and the matter is remitted to the file of the first respondent for re-consideration.
ii. While making such re-consideration, the first respondent shall seek for additional particulars from the petitioner and once such a request is received, it is for the petitioner to respond and produce those additional particulars before the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such request.
iii. On receipt of additional particulars from the petitioner, the first respondent shall act upon the application of the petitioner and find out any suitable post from the Group ?C? and ?D? categories and offer the same to the petitioner.
iv. Once such offer comes from the first respondent, it is for the petitioner to accept the same. Since the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner is ready and willing to take any post offered to her from the Group ?C? and ?D? categories, the question of offering Assistant Draftsman post alone to the petitioner does not arise.
v. The needful as directed above shall be done by the first respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date receipt of additional particulars, if any sought for from the petitioner.
17. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
1.The Director General, High ways Department, Chepauk, Chennai ? 600 005.
2.The Superintending Engineer, High ways Department, Alagarkovil Road, Madurai ? 2.
3.The Divisional Engineer (Projects), High ways Department, Madurai -2.
.