D SITHA LAKSHMI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the respondent dated 27.11.2006 and consequently, seeking for a direction to absorb the petitioner in any one of the vacancies according to the petitioner's qualification.

(2.) THIS writ petition came to be filed before this Court under the following facts and circumstances:- (i) The petitioner's father one R. Durai Raj was serving as Jeep Driver at the office of the Thasildar, Ilayndudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. He died on 26.5.1992, while in service, due to heart attack. He left his wife and three children, namely, two daughters and one son as his legal-heirs. The family was not able to survive with the family pension granted to the wife of the deceased. At the time of death, the petitioner, being the eldest, was aged about 7 years and other two children, were aged 5 and3 years respectively. The petitioner's mother Parimala Gandhi applied before the respondent on 20.12.1993 seeking for an appointment to the petitioner in any post on compassionate ground. To the said request made by the petitioner's mother, the Revenue Tashildar of Ilayankudi Taluk through his proceeding, dated 31.3.1994, informed that she was not having the requisite educational qualification and the children of the deceased were also 9, 7 and 5 years old respectively and as such, there was no possibility for making any compassionate appointment. However, the said official advised her that an application can be made after her children acquire the requisite educational qualification. Again on 3.5.1999, the petitioner's mother applied before the Tashildar, Ilayankudi, once again requesting for a compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner had also made a request through her application, to the respondent herein and through proceedings, dated 6.11.2000, the respondent directed the petitioner to furnish certain documents. It is stated that all those documents sought for by the respondent were furnished immediately. Again by proceedings, dated 12.7.2002, the respondent called upon the petitioner to furnish the certificate of Typewriting in the senior Grade. In the said proceedings, the respondent stated that if no such certificate is produced, it would be considered that the petitioner was not qualified for the appointment as Typist and consequently, the same will be given to the other persons in the seniority list. It is stated that the petitioner had produced the said certificate as required by the respondent. Thereafter, by a proceedings, dated, 5.9.2003, the respondent informed that no action could be taken on the proposal for compassionate appointments except to register the applications according to the seniority, based on a communication received from the Commissioner of Revenue Administration. Therefore, the petitioner's application was only registered and kept in the seniority list. (ii) It is further stated by the petitioner that the respondent again through his proceedings, dated 31.10.2003, informed the petitioner that the Government had imposed ban on appointment under G.O. Ms. No. 212, dated 29.11.2001, and only when the ban is lifted the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment based on the seniority will be considered. The respondent again through proceedings, dated 1.6.2005, called upon the petitioner to furnish certain documents which were also immediately furnished by the petitioner. Further by a proceeding, dated 7.10.2005, the petitioner was once again called upon to furnish some more documents, which, according to the petitioner, were also furnished immediately. When all the required documents as required by the respondent were furnished by the petitioner in time, the impugned order came to be passed on 27.11.2006, in respect of several persons out of which petitioner was shown as serial No. 13, thereby the respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner for the compassionate appointment on the sole ground that the application was not made within three years from the date of death of the Government Servant, namely, petitioner's father. Aggrieved against the said order passed by the respondent, the petitioner had come forward with the above writ petition.

(3.) I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing the respondent.