R NAGAMANI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is that the first petitioner is the son and the second respondent -petitioner is the widow of the deceased V. Rajamanickam and that the said V. Rajamanickam died - in - harness on 3 January 1994, while he was working as an assistant teacher in the Government Elementary School at Manalur, Dharmapuri. The petitioners made a representation to the third respondent, dated 24 July 1996, for appointment on compassionate ground to the first petitioner and along with the said representation, the petitioners also enclosed death certificate of the deceased V.Rajamanickam, legal heir certificate, no objection letter from the eldest son of the said deceased to give appointment to the first petitioner and other certificates as required by the respondents. The fourth respondent by his communication, dated 13 March 1998, called for certain particulars from the petitioners, which was also submitted by them. The third respondent in his communication, dated 9 March 1999, recommended the name of the 1 petitioner to the second respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. The third respondent also sent a reminder, dated 26 June 2001, to the second respondent to pass order considering appointment of the first petitioner at the earliest, considering the family circumstances of the petitioners. The fourth respondent passed an order, dated 25 February 2002, rejecting the request made by the petitioners on the sole ground that when qualified eider son is available, the request of the petitioners seeking appointment to the younger son namely the first petitioner, cannot be considered, which is impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel, for the petitioners has submitted that appointment on compassionate ground is provided to save the family, which is suffering from poverty and that the elder son has given his no objection letter on 24 July 1996, for appointment of the first petitioner and hence, the order of the fourth respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the sole ground that compassionate appointment could be made only to the elder son is untenable in law and prayed for quashing of the impugned order.

(3.) ON the above said contentions, this Court heard the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Paras Nath, 1999 (4) L.L.N. 80, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, that, in Para. 5, at page 81 :