STATE AND ORS. Vs. P. SASIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 42359 of 2006 dated 21.04.2009. By the said order, the learned Judge took a view that there was violation of principles of natural justice in the order passed by the third respondent in the writ petition cancelling the order of appointment given to the writ petitioner/respondent after three years of his appointment. Therefore, the learned Judge, while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein directed the appellants herein to reinstate him with continuity of service and other benefits but without backwages for the period in question.

(2.) THE case of the respondent before the writ court was that his father N. Ponnusamy died on 12.01.1977 during the course of his employment as Secondary Grade Teacher. It is also his case that no one in his family, other than the respondent, claimed appointment on compassionate grounds. On verification of such claim made by the respondent, he was given appointment on compassionate ground as Junior Assistant by proceedings dated 29.11.1995 of the third respondent/third appellant herein. The respondent also joined as Junior Assistant in Government Higher Secondary School, Nadupatti, Omalur Taluk, Salem District on 11.12.1995. After his appointment, the appellants called for certain particulars from the respondent and also No objection letter from other legal heirs and the respondent's mother also submitted the same. However, without issuing any notice to the respondent, the third respondent/third appellant cancelled the order of appointment given to the petitioner on 11.01.1999. Consequently, a relieving order was issued to the petitioner by the Headmaster of Government Higher Secondary School Nadupatty on 12.01.1999. The said orders were called in question by the respondent before the Writ Court.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. R. Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr. V.P. Rajendran, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would vehemently contended that appointment on compassionate grounds can be given to a deserving eligible person. The writ petitioner/respondent being the 9th legal heir ought not to have been issued appointment on compassionate grounds. It is further pointed out that there was no application submitted seeking appointment on compassionate grounds within the time frame fixed by the Government. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader prayed for allowing the writ appeal.