Madras High Court
D.Prabhakaran 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.8923 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2013 D.Prabhakaran ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Director General High ways Department Chepauk, Chennai ? 600 005 2.The Superintending Engineer Highways Department Alagarkovil Road Madurai ? 2 3.The Divisional Engineer (Projects) Highways Department, Madurai -2 4.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Dr.Ambedkar Salai, 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, calling for the records relating to the impugned memorandum issued by the 1st respondent in his memorandum Nir1(1)35486/2012 dated 11.02.2013 and quash the same illegal and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to provide the petitioners appointment on compassionate ground as Assistant Draftsman in the light of the proposal sent by the 2nd respondent in his letter f.vz;.8218/2005/M5 dated 01.02.2006 within a stipulated period. !For Appellant : Mr.K.Ponnaiah for M/S.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadhas Government Advocate :ORDER
The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned memorandum eph;.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 proposal sent by the second respondent vide letter f.vz;.8218/2005/M5, dated 01.02.2006, within a stipulated time.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his father was working in the fourth respondent Office as a Gang Mazdoor and he died suddenly due to road accident on 23.10.2000 leaving behind the petitioner, his mother, two unmarried sisters and grandparents in indigent circumstances. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was only aged fourteen years as his date of birth was 15.06.1985 and he was studying tenth standard. Subsequently, after the petitioner completing tenth standard as well as Diploma Course, he had made an application on 19.08.2002, seeking appointment on compassionate ground.
3. In response to the said application, certain additional particulars were sought for by the respondent ? Department, which the petitioner had complied with and handed over to the respondent - Department. Thereafter, the petitioner's application had not been considered in time and after several years, the present impugned order, dated 11.02.2013, has been passed by the first respondent, whereby the request of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that no post of Assistant Draftsman is available in the respondent - Department to offer the same to the petitioner as he is having the educational qualification to hold the said post. Challenging the said order, dated 11.02.2013, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Heard Mr.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.
5. Mr.Mr.K.Ponnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had made an application dated 19.08.2002, when he was about to complete eighteen years as before becoming major, no legal heir of the deceased Government servant can claim compassionate appointment. At the time of making application on 19.08.2002, the petitioner had only requested the respondent - Department to give compassionate appointment to him and he had not specified that only a particular post has to be offered to him.
6. Even though the petitioner has subsequently qualified with Diploma Course which would be necessary or suitable qualification to hold the post of Assistant Draftsman in the respondent ? Department, the petitioner knew his limitation that he cannot claim any particular post as a matter of right especially when he seeks for consideration under compassionate ground.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that even any such request is made by the petitioner assuming without admitting that it is for the respondent - Department to decide as to which post can be offered to the petitioner as per the availability of vacancies in the respondent ? Department on compassionate ground. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present reason given that too after a long gap from the date of submission of representation is totally unjustifiable and unsustainable and therefore, the impugned order cannot stand under legal scrutiny and therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with.
8. However, Mr.K.P.Krishnadas, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the father of the petitioner died on 23.10.2000 and at that time, the petitioner was only fourteen years old as his date of birth was 15.06.1985 and he had made an application, admittedly, only on 19.08.2002. Even on the said date the petitioner had completed only seventeen years and two months and he had not attained majority at the time of making application.
9. Nevertheless, the said application filed by the petitioner was taken on record and since the petitioner made application without any enclosures and particulars, which are required to be considered for compassionate appointment, the respondent ? Department directed the petitioner to produce those necessary enclosures and particulars for consideration of his application. Accordingly, the petitioner had produced those particulars and made a request to consider his case for compassionate appointment on the basis of his educational qualification.
10. The learned Additional Government Pleader, in this regard, would submit that after death of his father and before making application for compassionate appointment, the petitioner completed a Diploma Course also. Therefore, in commensurate with the said educational qualification obtained by the petitioner, he had requested for a suitable job, which according to the petitioner, was Assistant Draftsman and the said post he had requested for, was not available at that time.
11. Since the post of Assistant Draftsman was not readily available as there was no vacancy, the request made by the petitioner could not be considered and therefore, the said reason has been given in the impugned order by saying that the request of the petitioner has been turned down and therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the impugned order is not only justifiable, but also sustainable.
12. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
13. It is an admitted fact that at time of death of the petitioner's father, he was only aged 14 years and therefore, he could not make any application seeking for compassionate appointment. At the time of attaining majority i.e., just before attaining the majority, on 19.08.2002, the petitioner had made an application seeking for compassionate appointment.
14. The copy of the said application made by the petitioner, dated 19.08.2002, has been filed in the typed set of papers along with the writ petition and the averments of the same read thus:
?Iah.
vdJ je;ij jpU.Mh;.Jiug;ghz;o mth;fs;,> kJiu (be) cl;Bfhl;lj;jpy; rhiyg; gzpahsuhf gzpahw;wpa BghJ 23.10.2000 fhykhfp tpl;lhh;. ehd; v!;.v!;.vy;.rp. Bjh;r;rp bgw;Ws;Bsd; vd;Wk; jw;BghJ o.rp.n.(rptpy;) nuz;lhk; Mz;L goj;J tUfpBwd; vd;gija[k; gzpt[ld; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpBwd;. Vdf;F jha[k; kw;Wk; nuz;L jA;iffSk; cs;sdh; vd;gija[k; bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpBwd;.
vdJ je;ij gzpapy; nUf;Fk; BghJ fhykhdjhy;,> fpilf;f Btz;oa fUizapd; mog;gilapy; gzp epakdj;ij vdf;F tHA;Fk;go Bfl;Lf; bfhs;fpBwd;.?
15. The said application having been considered by the respondent -
Department and it was found that certain required particulars, were not annexed along with the application and the same were sought for from the petitioner, which admittedly had been submitted by the petitioner for consideration. After having considered the application as well as the educational qualification of the petitioner and all other documents, the respondent ? Department could have taken a decision well in advance as the application was dated 19.08.2002, whereas the decision taken and communicated to the petitioner through the impugned order is dated 11.02.2013. Though such a long period has been taken by the respondent ? Department to take a decision, ultimately now the request of the petitioner has been turned down by the first first respondent by stating a reason that the petitioner has sought for the post of Assistant Draftsman, which post is not readily available with the respondent ? Department and therefore, the request of the petitioner has been turned down.
16. From the perusal of the application, dated 19.08.2002, as the averments of the same have been extracted herein above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made any specific request that he should be offered the post of Assistant Draftsman. Even assuming that subsequently, the petitioner comes forward to make a request that in commensurate with his educational qualification he should be offered only the post of Assistant Draftsman, in the considered opinion of this Court, such a request need not be considered for grant of such post as it is a settled proposition that except Group-C and D posts, no other posts would be made available to offer on compassionate ground. Therefore, the respondent - Department could have offered any post from Group-C and D categories ofcourse in commensurate with the educational qualification of the petitioner and if any such offer is made and the same is turned down, then the request of the petitioner could have been closed. Without offering any post from Group-C and D categories on compassionate ground, the petitioner's request should not have been turned down by merely stating a reason that the post sought for, namely, Assistant Draftsman is not available with the respondent - Department.
17. Since in compassionate ground appointments, the norms, such as, method of appointment, age and in some extent, educational qualification as well as the experience etc., are relaxed to a considerable extent to offer compassionate appointment so as to enable the legal heirs of the deceased Government servant to alleviate from the penurious situation, where the family of the deceased Government servant is placed because of his / her sudden demise, such appointments can only be made from Group-C and D posts. Therefore, by citing this reason, the application of the petitioner ought not to have been rejected by the first respondent as he has done in the impugned order. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable only because of the reason stated therein. If at all the respondent ? Department wants to give or offer any post belonged to Group-C and D, the same should have been made and if the same has been declined by the petitioner, then it is open to the respondent ? Department to close the file of the petitioner for not accepting the alternative job offered to him.
18. Therefore, in such circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:-
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 communication 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 communication.
iii. On receipt of additional particulars from the petitioner, the first respondent shall act upon the application of the petitioner and find out any available job from the Group-C and D categories and the same can be offered 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 him 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 of receipt of additional particulars, if any sought for from the petitioner.
19. 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, Highways Department, Chepauk, Chennai ? 600 005.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Highways Department,
Alagarkovil Road ,
Madurai ? 2.
3.The Divisional Engineer (Projects),
High ways Department,
Madurai -2.
4.The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Dr.Ambedkar Salai,
Madurai-2.
.