R LAKSHMI Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner's husband, who served as Helper in the North Chennai Thermal Power Station, Chennai, died on 23.01.2002 due to illness, leaving behind his father, mother, two sons and one daughter. After the death of her husband, she immediately submitted her application on 23.11.2004 to the third Respondent. But, the third Respondent, by proceedings dated 11.02.2005, returned the application on the ground that she did not have minimum educational qualification of 8th standard pass as per the Board rules. Thereafter, with a great difficulty, the Petitioner, as a private candidate, studied and completed the 8th standard successfully on 16.12.2005. After the receipt of the mark sheet, the Petitioner, again, made her representation on 13.03.2006 to the third Respondent requesting for appointment on compassionate ground. But, the second Respondent rejected her claim for compassionate appointment, by order dated 29.04.2006, holding that she had not completed the 8th standard within three years from the date of death of her husband.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that when the Petitioner made her application on 23.11.2004 to the third Respondent, by proceedings dated 11.02.2005, the third Respondent returned her application on the ground that the Petitioner did not have minimum educational qualification of pass in 8th standard as per the Board Rules , for getting compassionate appointment. Immediately thereafter, the Petitioner, as a private candidate, took effort and came out successfully by passing 8th standard on 16.12.2005. Therefore, she has made another representation dated 13.03.2006 to the third Respondent renewing her request for compassionate appointment. On submission of her representation, she was waiting with fond hope to get a favorable order, since she has acquired the requisite educational qualification. But, the second Respondent rejected her claim on 29.04.2006, by repeating the same reason that the Petitioner had not passed 8th standard within three years from the date of death of her husband.

(3.) Further, it was submitted that when the Petitioner filed an appeal before the first Respondent against the order passed by the second Respondent dated 29.04.2006, the first Respondent also failed to consider the plight of the Petitioner. Challenging the same, when a writ petition in W.P. No. 7077 of 2009 was filed, this Court, by order dated 20.04.2009, passed an order holding that it is not fair on the part of the second Respondent to reject the application of the Petitioner on the ground that the requisite qualification was not acquired within 3 years. Moreover, for the post of Sweeper, no educational qualification is required, except the person concerned possesses the ability to read and write. However, in the present case, the Petitioner has already acquired the minimum educational of pass in 8th standard, therefore, the first Respondent ought not to have rejected her appeal on 28.02.2009.