V TAMILARASI Vs. CHAIRMAN TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD M. Ajmal Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Panneerselvam, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 1890 of 2005 dated 04. 07. 2007. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent dated 14. 10. 2004 in Letter No. 51873/644/g8/g82/pro 49/2004-2 and quash the same. The main dispute relates to the question of appointment on compassionate ground.

(3.) THE present appellant is the daughter of the deceased, who was employed in the Electricity Board in the year 1983. At that time the petitioner was a minor. Subsequently on attaining majority, the appellant herein filed an application in the year 2001 for getting appointment on compassionate ground. It appears that a suit was filed by the present appellant and her mother against some other persons who were also claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased. Such suit was disposed of on compromise, wherein it was declared that the present appellant would be entitled to get an appointment on compassionate ground from the Board. Thereafter, in the year 2001 an application was filed claiming appointment on the compassionate ground. Such application was rejected by the Electricity Board. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed in the year 2005. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition by relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in E. Ramasamy Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board rep. by its Chairman (2006 (4) MLJ Page 1080 ). In the said decision, the Division Bench by interpreting the scheme of compassionate appointment in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, it has been laid down that such appointment can be made in accordance with the scheme and not otherwise. The learned single Judge has also observed that the Civil Court, without any jurisdiction, held that the present appellant was entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground. Such order is now in question.