WP/30361/2022 of K.Soundariya Vs The Director of school Education on 3 November 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 08.04.2022.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the very reason assigned in the impugned order, namely, that the petitioner had submitted a letter withdrawing her request for compassionate appointment on the ground that she was pursuing her MBA and making arrangements for her marriage, is factually incorrect. In this regard, the learned counsel would point out that the impugned order refers to the return of all the original documents on 31.07.2008, whereas, in the counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition, the respondents had stated that the said documents were returned on 12.04.2004.

2.1. Further, the learned counsel has also relied upon another letter dated 27.09.2006, wherein the respondents had stated that the documents were being returned on the ground that the application had been submitted with a delay of five and a half years. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel that the reasons assigned in the impugned order are erroneous and hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition.

3. However, the aforesaid contention is objected by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, who would submit that there was an inordinate delay in submitting the application for compassionate appointment. Further, according to the impugned order, the petitioner's request was not processed on account of the specific reason that she had withdrawn her request for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped from raising the very same contention once again by filing the present writ petition. Hence, the learned Additional Government Pleader prays dismissal of the writ petition.

4. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. It is a well-settled principle of law that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment. Unless the petitioner satisfies all the prescribed conditions, she cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. Further, the scheme of compassionate appointment is intended only to alleviate the immediate financial hardship and indigent circumstances faced by the dependent family members of the deceased employee.

6. In the case on hand, admittedly, the employee died in the year 1996, and this Court is now considering the matter in the year 2026, after the lapse of nearly three decades. Therefore, the very object of compassionate appointment, which is conceived only to address the immediate indigent circumstances of the dependent family, cannot be pressed into service after such an inordinate lapse of time.

7. Further, on a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the petitioner's request was not considered on the ground that she herself had withdrawn her request for compassionate appointment. Though the said contention has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the counter affidavit and the discrepancy with regard to the date of return of the documents, the fact remains that there was a withdrawal letter submitted by the petitioner.

8. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P. No.16789 of 2017, the date of return of the documents has been referred to as 12.04.2004, whereas the impugned order refers to the date as 31.07.2008. However, on a careful perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the respondents have categorically stated that the withdrawal letter submitted by the petitioner did not bear any date. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the mere discrepancy with regard to the dates referred to in the impugned order and the counter affidavit filed in W.P. No.16798 of 2017 would not, by itself, enure to the benefit of the petitioner or invalidate the impugned order.

9. In view of the fact that the petitioner had withdrawn her request for compassionate appointment and has sought to revive the same course of action after a lapse of nearly three decades, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out warranting interference with the impugned order.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 03-11-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes JRS

To

1. The Director of school Education D.P.I. Building college Road, Chennai 600 006

2. The Chief Educational officer Tiruvannamalai District

3. The District Educational officer Arni. Tiruvannamalai District

4. The block educational officer West Arni, Tiruvannamalai District

5. The Headmaster Panchayat union Perimary school, Vinnamangalam Arni Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District

6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. JRS WP No. 30361 of 2022 03-11-2026