Madras High Court

WP/14643/2026 of V.KAVIYARASU Vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL on 3 September 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

W.P.NO.14643 OF 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.09.2026

CORAM

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN

W.P.NO.14643 OF 2026

V.Kaviyarasu

…

Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Registrar General

High Court of Madras

Chennai – 600 104.

2.The Principal District Judge

Principal District Court

Kancheepuram District @ Chengalpet.

…

Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records in connection with the impugned order of the second respondent in D.No.6567/A/2025 dated 17.10.2025, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner herein on compassionate ground to any suitable posts by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 30.08.2025.

( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:46:07 pm )

W.P.NO.14643 OF 2026

For Petitioner

:

Mr.L.Chandrakumar

For Respondents :

Mr.R.Sunilkumar

Standing Counsel

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.) The order of the Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, dated 17.10.2025, declining to grant appointment on compassionate grounds, on the ground of medical invalidation, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The father of the writ petitioner Mr.A.Veeramuthu joined as Night Watchman in the Principal District Court, Chengalpet, on 20.09.2001. Her was promoted as Office Assistant on 04.06.2007. Subsequently, he was serving as Record Clerk. From 2009 to 2023, he was serving as Process Server. The father of the writ petitioner met with an accident on 09.08.2005, while he was on duty and sustained severe head and spinal cord injuries. He took treatment continuously. Admittedly, he joined duty in the year 2005 itself and served for a considerable length of time. He made an application on 20.02.2020

( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:46:07 pm )

W.P.NO.14643 OF 2026

seeking to relieve him from service on the grounds of medical invalidation. He further submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground, to the writ petitioner, who is the son of the employee. The Competent Authority referred the father of the writ petitioner for medical assessment before the Medical Board, Chengalpet. The Competent Medical Board, Chengalpet, on 31.05.2023, declared that the father of the writ petitioner was not fit to perform his duties. In other words, declaration of medical invalidation was done by the Competent Medical Board on 31.05.2023.

3. Rule 2(g) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2003 defines ‘medically invalidated’ as under: “(g)“medically invalidated” means, a Government servant ordered to be retired from service with not less than five years of left over service, on medical invalidation in the public interest under Fundamental Rule 56(2) read with rule 24(b) of rules for “Leave procedure in the case of Government servants”, made under Fundamental Rule 74 and ‘medical invalidation’ shall be construed accordingly.”

( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:46:07 pm )

W.P.NO.14643 OF 2026

4. In the present case, as per the Rules, the Authorities found that the case of the writ petitioner does not fall within the ambit of the Scheme, since the declaration of medical invalidation was made by the Competent Medical Board on 31.05.2023. The Rules governing compassionate appointment are to be followed scrupulously. Compassionate appointment being a concession. Any relaxation of the conditions of the Scheme would infringe the rights of eligible candidates who all are aspiring to secure appointment through the open competitive process. Since the writ petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions of the Scheme, the decision taken by the respondents cannot be said to be infirm. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

[S.M.S., J.] [K.G.R., J.]

03.09.2026 Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes TK

( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:46:07 pm )

W.P.NO.14643 OF 2026

To

1. The Registrar General High Court of Madras Chennai – 600 104.

2. The Principal District Judge Principal District Court Kancheepuram District @ Chengalpet.

( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:46:07 pm )

W.P.NO.14643 OF 2026

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. TK

W.P.NO.14643 OF 2026 03.09.2026

( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:46:07 pm )

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead