C.K. SRINIVASAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the son of late C.V. Krishnasamy, who was working as a Junior Engineer in Highways and Rural Works Department at Villupuram Division. Unfortunately he passed away on 23.7.1996. At the relevant time, the petitioner had crossed the age limit of 30 years for entry into Government service. The petitioner on account of the death of his father was sending representation for considering his case for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant on compassionate ground. After sending series of representations, the Chief Engineer, Highways Department by a communication dated 18.11.2008 informed that the petitioner was not qualified for entry into Government employment and even at the time of death of his father, he was overaged and as per Rule 54(A), he could not be provided with employment. The petitioner notwithstanding the said rejection, did not choose to challenge the same either immediately or within the reasonable time after the impugned order was communicated. Nevertheless, he sent a representation to the State Government after one year after the said communication on 12.12.2009 and with reminder on 10.1.2010. Thereafter he had approached this Court challenging the order of the year 2008 and after getting the order set aside also seeks for a direction to consider his case for compassionate appointment. Strong reliance is placed upon by the petitioner on Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, by which the Governor of the State is entitled to relax any condition for entry into Government service. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission, as the scheme of compassionate appointment is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Courts have repeatedly held that the Scheme has to be construed strictly. Further, in respect of the eligibility condition, the question of Court invoking the power of giving direction to grant relaxation does not arise, as very recently the Supreme Court vide its judgment in State of Gujarat and others vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari and others, 2012 9 SCC 545 in paragraphs 8 to 14 had observed as follows:

(2.) In the light of the same, the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and lacks in merits and accordingly stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.