WP/34461/2024 of J.SUDHAN Vs DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE on 29 September 2026

ORDER

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to a suitable post in the Police Department on compassionate grounds, based on his educational qualification, in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2023, within the time frame fixed by this Court, in view of the petitioner’s representation dated 21.10.2024.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that her father, D. Jothimani, died while he was in service on 22.10.2011. It is her submission that, after the demise of Mr. D. Jothimani, his wife, namely, the mother of the petitioner, sent an application for compassionate appointment on 03.07.2014 and the same was rejected on 20.05.2026, on the ground that the petitioner’s mother had no qualification and, therefore, if there were any other eligible persons, they would be considered. Thereafter, the petitioner has given many representations since 2016 and every time those applications were rejected.

3. It is the specific submission that, in the meanwhile, a new rule came into effect in March 2023. According to the new rule, the submission of an

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:28 pm )

WP No. 34461 of 2024

application during minority is not a ground, and the only material aspect is that, at the time of appointment, the applicant must have completed 18 years. Therefore, the rejection made in respect of limitation and on account of the minority of the petitioner will in no way affect the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment.

4. Her contention was specifically objected to by the learned Special Government Pleader, who would submit that the new rule is applicable only prospectively, whereas, in the case in hand, the petitioner’s father died in 2011. According to the settled principle of law, relevant rule which would operate for compassionate appointment must be taken into consideration as on the date of death of the employee. In the case in hand, since the employee died in 2011, the relevant rule applicable is a rule this was in force during 2011 alone is material and not the 2023 rule.

5. It is also the submission that therefore the earlier applications were rejected; the petitioner has not challenged the same. In spite of all those strong objections, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that, if reasonable time is granted, the representation dated 21.10.2024 submitted by the petitioner may be considered.

6. In view of the above fair submission made by the learned Special

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:28 pm )

WP No. 34461 of 2024

Government Pleader, without going into the merits of the writ petition, this Court would like to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 21.10.2024 on its own merits and in accordance with law, and pass order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No JRS

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:28 pm )

WP No. 34461 of 2024

To

1. Director General Of Police Kamarajar Salai, Chennai- 04.

2. The Superintendent Of Police Tiruppur District.

3. The public prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:28 pm )

WP No. 34461 of 2024

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. JRS WP No. 34461 of 2024 29-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:28 pm )