STATE OF TAMILNADU Vs. MICHEAL ARUL BALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The state Government has filed this writ petition seeking for quashing the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, dated 3.5.2000, made in O.A.No.1069 of 2000.

(2.) The first respondent filed the application before the Administrative Tribunal to quash the order, dated 24.12.1999, passed by the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, the third petitioner and consequently to direct the petitioners to appoint him as School Assistant on compassionate ground in his capacity as legal heir of the deceased mother V.Mary, who died on 2.11.1966 while working as Secondary Grade Teacher in the Government School at Ananthamangalam. According to the first respondent, his mother died on 2.11.1966, prior to the promulgation of the Scheme of providing employment to the dependents of the Government Servant, who dies in harness, leaving the family in penury and he was 18 months old child at that time. The first respondent has further stated that his father was self-employed as "Nattu Vaithiyar" and did not have regular income and he remarried on 26.2.1968 and the first respondent stayed with his maternal grandmother who educated him upto fifth standard and later he was admitted in an Orphanage where he studied from sixth standard to tenth standard during the years 1976 to 1981. It is the further case of the first respondent that he joined Society of Provincial Carmelite Fathers at Trichy and did the initiation course between 1981 and 1982 and became a member of Religious Congregation and continued to stay in the Society for eight years during which time, he studied Higher Secondary Course and B.A.Philosophy course and became a graduate in the year 1988 and on 17.11.1988, he applied to the District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai, the fourth petitioner, for the post of Junior Assistant in the Education Department on compassionate ground as the son of the deceased V.Mary, who died on 2.11.1966 while working as Secondary Grade Teacher and he did not get any reply. The first respondent has further stated that he continued his studies through correspondence and completed M.A. Literature in English in the year 1991 and also completed his B.Ed. in June, 1992. According to the first respondent, the application made in the year 1988 was rejected in the year 1997 and he sent another application in June, 1997 to the fourth petitioner seeking for appointment as School Assistant on compassionate ground and he received a reply by letter, dated 13.8.1997, stating that the application for appointment on compassionate ground should have been submitted as soon as the applicant completed his S.S.L.C. or before completion of 30 years, whichever was earlier and since the applicant did not do so, it is time barred and hence rejected. It is further stated by the first respondent that the second petitioner wrote a letter on 22.1.1999 to the third petitioner and the third petitioner by letter, dated 17.2.1999, called upon him to submit a regular application in full form and accordingly, he submitted the application, dated 25.3.1999, along with the enclosures and that application came to be rejected by the second petitioner by order, dated 29.11.1999 and it was communicated by the order of the third petitioner, dated 24.12.1999, in which, it is stated that the father's name of the applicant has not been shown as legal heir in the Heirship Certificate issued by the Tahsildar and it is also not stated as to in what job the father was working at the time of death of his wife and it is further stated that the Government Servant died in the year 1966, whereas the Government Order providing for compassionate appointment came only in the year 1972 and hence the request cannot be considered. The first respondent challenged the order, dated 24.12.1999, by filing O.A.No.1069 of 2000 in the Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal concluded that the applicant is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground and allowed the application. Challenging the same, the State has preferred the present writ petition.

(3.) A counter has been filed by the first respondent stating that he made his first application seeking compassionate appointment when he was 23 years old and the second application was made when he was 32 years and later, he filed his third application when he was 34 years old and all the three applications came to be rejected without proper enquiry and the certificate has been issued by the Tahsildar after verification and the Tribunal has passed the order on merits and there is no need to set aside that order.