M MURUGASEKHAR Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER PERSONNEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Lr.No.SE/NP 3/Asst-6/Ko.Va.Ve/251/97-(7) dated 19.12.1997 quash the same and direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner has helper on compassionate ground as per the Board Proceedings in B.P. (FB) No.2 (Administrative Branch) dated 11.1.1993 and pass such further or other orders.

(2.) With the consent of counsel on either side this writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal on 28.3.2003 . Heard Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Radhakrishnan, for the respondents.

(3.) The petitioner's father, Masilamani, while he was working as Junior Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, died in harness on 17.6.96. The petitioner, who has studied upto 7th standard had to discontinue due to poverty and family circumstances and with meagre income, the mother is unable to maintain the family. The petitioner applied to the 2nd respondent on 5.12.96 for employment on compassionate ground. The petitioner complied with the requirements. The 2nd respondent denied compassionate appointment by communication dated 19.12.97 on the sole ground that the petitioner has not passed 8th standard. According to the Board's circular dated 11.1.93, for appointment on compassionate grounds, women or dependants of employee, who died in harness, the Board has to engage them on a consolidated wages, provided the applicant has passed 4th standard and such engagement has to be for a period of three years training and, thereafter, as helper. Ignoring the said circular, the order impugned has been passed. There is no nexus between the reasons in relaxing the minimum qualification in the case of dependants of the employees, who die in harness and the refusal to give employment on the ground that the dependant has not passed 8th standard is arbitrary. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings of rejection passed by the 2nd respondent on 19.12.97 as violative of Article 14 and 21 of The Constitution. The petitioner claims that he has joined a private tutorial college and appeared for ESLC examination and waiting for the results. The petitioner also relies upon an order passed by this Court in W.P. No.18979 of 1997, where the writ petitioner Chandra, who was identically placed has been directed to be appointed on compassionate grounds.