WA/1142/2024 of R.VANISRI Vs THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION on 18 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Krishnaswamy Govindarajan,J.) The unsuccessful writ petitioner in W.P.No.6115 of 2023 is the appellant herein.

2. The appellant filed the writ petition for the following relief: ‘’Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent through his proceeding vide Mu. Mu. No. 56253/ J /E3/ 2020 dated 10.03.2021 and further directing the First to Third Respondents to appoint the Petitioner in a suitable post under the compassionate Appointment.’’

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that his father, who was employed as an Office Assistant in the Government Higher Secondary School, Dhavani, Nilgiris District, died in harness on 23.10.2010 leaving behind the petitioner, his elder sister, brother and mother. After the death of his father, the petitioner’s brother made an application for compassionate appointment. However, due to his psychiatric illness, his application was not considered and was rejected. The petitioner then made a request for compassionate appointment to the third respondent. The petitioner's request for compassionate appointment was rejected on 23.11.2020 and an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the second respondent, which was also rejected. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the writ petition before the Writ Court with the relief stated above.

4. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents herein on the ground that after an inordinate delay, the petitioner's request cannot be considered and there is no indigent circumstance in the family and prayed for dismissal.

5. On the basis of the submissions made by the parties, the Writ Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had not suffered from any hardship and that if any indulgence were shown after 12 years from the date of death of the Government servant, it would amount to extending an undue favour to the petitioner and be detrimental to other citizens. Not satisfied with the order of the Writ Court, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present Writ Appeal.

6. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record.

7. The issue before this Court is no longer res integra in view of the decision rendered by this Bench in the case of the Secretary to Government and others Vs. T.Sushmitha reported in 2026 MHC 3537. This Court has allowed the appeal in favour of the Government. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: ‘’12. The ill-effects of this scheme are to be considered in a constitutional perspective. Equal employment in public employment is a constitutional mandate. Social justice is the philosophy enunciated under the constitution and is to be achieved by the State to ensure that every citizen gets equal opportunity in public employment. All public appointments are to be made under the constitutional scheme of appointments. Lakhs and lakhs of youths of our great nation are longing to secure public employment through an open competitive process. They are working hard and awaiting recruitment notification from the Public Service Commissions and the Government. Many citizens in remote areas of our Country are first time graduates and are waiting for such employment notification to secure public employment, which they consider as a status in the society. Depriving those meritorious candidates of securing employment on merits and through reservation is unconstitutional. Therefore, the scheme of compassionate appointment itself is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Under the scheme, no merit assessment has been made, no reservation is followed, eligibility criteria is not followed and death alone is the criteria to provide public employment. Therefore, the scheme is to be implemented in a restricted manner.

13. Article 335 of the Constitution of India denotes claims of Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes to service and posts. The said Article enumerates that “the claims of the members of the Scheduled Tribes / Scheduled Castes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State”

14. The constitution mandates even while providing public appointments to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe candidates, maintenance of efficiency of administration in making of such appointments is of paramount importance. That being the spirit of constitution, the scheme of compassionate appointment, if leading to an inefficiency in public administration, the scheme is to be revisited by the States and the Union so as to ensure the most deserving family alone has been provided with compassionate appointment in a restricted manner to protect the basic rights of the meritorious candidates, including the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes candidates, who are all aspiring to secure public employment through the constitutional scheme of appointments.

15. The scheme of compassionate appointment is a special consideration extended to the families of the deceased employee mostly on sympathy grounds and also to protect their livelihood. Therefore, the scheme must act in its real objective and not to provide one appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased employee. However, in recent times, the scheme has been misconstrued or misinterpreted so as to secure public employment through this concessional scheme of appointments. Unless such attempts are thwarted, the very spirit of constitutional scheme of appointments are under threat.

16. The State has to ensure equal opportunity in public employment and social justice as mandated to protect the rule of reservation for the socially backward and downtrodden communities. Any extended scheme of concessional appointments, undoubtedly would deprive the opportunities of weaker section in the society and thereby offending the principles of social justice as mandated under the constitution.

17. The Courts are not expected to approach such issues on misplaced sympathy. The Court though considered such cases on individual facts, it is the duty bound to assess the mitigating factors so as to strike a balance and ensure that the constitutional mandates and rights of citizens in the society to secure public employment are protected and preserved. Therefore, the Courts are not expected to be carried away by misplaced sympathy on the ground that an employee died and therefore, give appointment to the legal heirs. The penurious circumstances prevailing in the family are of paramount importance for extending the scheme of compassionate appointment. Any routine orders passed by the Courts would not only offend the constitution but deny employment opportunity to meritorious candidates, who are all waiting for public employment.’’

8. On perusal of the above-said judgment, this Bench has held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right after a long delay, and the object of the scheme is to tide over an immediate financial crisis and not to provide employment as a bounty.

9. In view of the above said finding, we do not feel any necessity to interfere with the order of the Writ Court. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli To

1. The Director Of School Education D.P.I.Compound, College Road, Chennai- 600 006.

2. The Joint Director Of School Education (personnel Division) D.P.I.Compound, College Road, Chennai- 600 006.

3. Chief Educational Officer Nilgiris District- 643 001.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. rli Pre-delivery judgment in WA No. 1142 of 2024 22-09-2026