MANIKANDAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of cancellation of appointment issued by the second respondent vide proceedings, dated 05.03.2009 pursuant to the orders of the first respondent, dated 12.02.2009 is under challenge in this writ petition and a further direction is sought for to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the respondents' Department.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the father of the writ petitioner Late. Shri.Ambalam was employed as Head Constable in Sivagangai District and passed away on 30.10.1995 while he was in service. The father of the writ petitioner was the sole bread winner of the family and on account of his sudden death, the family was in penurious circumstances. Thus, the writ petitioner made an application seeking Compassionate Appointment on 28.11.1995. The case of the writ petitioner was considered and the writ petitioner was called for certificate verification and thereafter, his case was recommended for appointment. He was proposed to be appointed as Date Entry Operator vide proceedings, dated 12.02.2005 and consequently, a posting order was also issued on 09.05.2005 posting the writ petitioner at Sivagangai Town. Based on the order of posting, the writ petitioner claims that the cancellation is untenable.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the subsequent appointment of his brother A.Vivek Kumar as Grade-II Police Constable cannot have any consequences in respect of the appointment of the writ petitioner, which was made on Compassionate Grounds. It is an admitted fact that the brother of the writ petitioner Mr.A.Vivek Kumar was appointed as Grade-II Constable through open competitive process in the year 2002. However, the case of the writ petitioner was considered on Compassionate grounds and he was appointed on 12.02.2005 and the posting order was issued on 09.05.2005. Thus, the appointment of the writ petitioner is independent and unconnected with the appointment of his brother, which was made even prior to the appointment of the writ petitioner. This being the factum, the cancellation of appointment cannot be sustained.