C JAYAPAL Vs. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Director of Medical education, Chennai-10 dated 06. 01. 1996, order dated 19. 11. 2001 of the Dean, madurai Medical College and the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative tribunal, Chennai dated 18. 06. 2002 made in O. A. No. 1844 of 2002, the petitioner, c. Jayapal, filed the above writ petition to quash those orders and issue directions to respondents 1 and 2 to appoint him in any one of the vacancies on compassionate ground.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: THE father of the petitioner was working as Lab technician Grade I in Government Rajaji Hospital , Madurai. On 06. 01. 1988, he died while in service. THE deceased left behind his widow manimekalai, two sons and two daughters. As his elder brother Rajkumar had already married and is living separately from their family, the petitioner made an application to the second respondent for appointment on compassionate ground in any one of the vacancies. THE second respondent has rejected his request on the ground that his elder brother is employed and the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. THEreafter, the petitioner made another representation to the respondents with a request to reconsider his claim for appointment on compassionate ground stating that his elder brother was employed in Central Government even before the death of his father and is also living separately after his marriage. He made the said representation based on G. O. Ms. No. 155 L & E Department dated 16. 07. 1993. THE second respondent rejected his claim on the ground that he had crossed the age limit for appointment on compassionate ground. THEreafter, he made a representation to the second respondent on 27. 11. 1998, based on G. O. Ms. No. 9 L&e Department dated 19. 01. 1998. THE petitioner furnished all necessary documents on 04. 01. 1999 and 23. 02. 1999. However, the second respondent on 19. 11. 2001, rejected his claim on the ground that the concession for the enhancement of age would come into force from the date of issuance of the Government Order and the same is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, since his father expired on 06. 01. 1988. In such a circumstance, having no other remedy, the petitioner filed O. A. No. 1844 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which, by the impugned order dated 18. 06. 2002, dismissed the original application and upheld the rejection order. THE said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) IN G. O. Ms. No. 9 L & E. Dept. , dated 19. 1. 1998 the upper age limit in so far as son or daughter is concerned has been increased to 35 from 30. INasmuch as the representation of the applicant was not considered by the Dean, Madurai Medical College and the Director of Medical Education, the applicant submitted a petition to the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 21. 12. 1998 and reminder on 6. 1. 1999 wherein he reiterated that though his brother is employed, he is living separately and he is not contributing anything to his mother and others. He also pointed out that as per the Government Letter No. 2563/n1/82-2, dated 11. 3. 1982, on the date of death of his father, he was aged about 24 years only. As rightly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents ought to have considered the same. The proceedings of the Dean, madurai Medical College dated 18. 12. 1998 shows that the applicant was asked to submit original legal heir certificate, the certificate relating to education, no objection certificate from other legal heirs and eligibility certificate from the officer concerned in original showing that the family is living below the poverty line.