WP/31074/2022 of S.Manimaran Vs The State rep. by Tamil Nadu on 12 October 2026

Order

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka. No.200/m5/2022 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground in respect of Cuddalore District.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the rejection order dated 19.09.2022 is contrary to the existing G.O. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even first rejection dated 10.12.2014 is in contravention to the order passed by the Government in G.O.(Ms).No.155, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 10.12.2014. The learned counsel would submit that though the respondent rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was a minor on the date of submitting the application, as per G.O.(Ms.) No.155, if any application was submitted between 23.08.2005 and 03.05.2010, and at that time if the applicant is a minor, that by itself could not be a ground for rejection, if he satisfies with the other criteria enumerated for the compassionate appointment.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner’s father, namely, Sivakumar was employed in the respondent- department and he died on 24.06.2008 and the petitioner being a minor son at that relevant point of time had submitted an application on 09.02.2010 within a period of three years from the date of death of his father. Though he was 14 years at the relevant point of time, considering G.O.(Ms).No.155, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 10.12.2014, his application is well within the purview of consideration. Therefore, the rejection order is in contravention to the above G.O. and is liable to be interfered with.

4. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. She would invite the attention of this Court with respect to the earlier rejection order dated 10.12.2014 and submit that the said rejection order has not been challenged at all. When the said order has not been challenged, the petitioner cannot have multiple cause of action by merely sending a representation and receiving a reply. Though the impugned order is dated 19.09.2022, it is only a reiteration of the earlier order passed on 2014. When the said order has not been challenged, the question of filing the present writ petition does not arise. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

6. According to the impugned order dated 19.09.2022, the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that on the date of submission of the application for compassionate appointment, the petitioner was a minor. The learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of this Court in respect of G.O.(Ms).No.155, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 10.12.2014, wherein certain concessions were given in respect of the application that has been submitted between 23.08.2005 and 03.05.2010. According to the concession, even if the applicant is a minor, that by itself is not a ground for rejection, if he satisfies with the other conditions enabling him to get a compassionate appointment.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner’s father died on 24.06.2008 and the petitioner submitted an application within a period of three years, i.e., on 09.02.2010. Though the application was submitted within a period of three years, while considering his first rejection on 10.12.2014, the application was rejected not only for the reason that the petitioner was a minor on the date of filing of the application, but also on the ground that the petitioner’s family was not in indigent or penurious circumstances, and that the other family members were employed. Therefore, they were not in such circumstances of requiring immediate assistance.

8. Further, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, even for the sake of argument, if the petitioner’s contention is accepted, since there were other reasons for the rejection and that such rejection has not at all been challenged by the petitioner, since 10.12.2014, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, though the petitioner relies upon G.O.(Ms.) No.155 dated 10.12.2014, in view of above reason, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RSI To

1. The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-06.

3. The District Educational Officer, Cuddalore District.

4. The Headmistress, Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School, Bhuvankiri, Cuddalore District.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. RSI WP No. 31074 of 2022 AND WMP NO. 30495 OF 2022 12-10-2026