BALAMMAL Vs. DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection issued by the third respondent vide proceedings, dated 30.03.2012 in respect of the claim of the writ petitioner for regularisation, is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The husband of the writ petitioner Late.Shri.Raju was employed as Sweeper in Nangavaram Town Panchayat, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District and passed away on 17.04.2006 while he was in service. After the demise of the husband, the writ petitioner made an application seeking compassionate appointment on 24.10.2006. However, the same was rejected on the ground that the husband of the writ petitioner was working as daily rated employee and his services were not regularised. Thereafter, the writ petitioner also was engaged as Sanitary worker in the Town Panchayat on temporary consolidated pay. Accordingly, the writ petitioner was continuing as temporary consolidated pay employee.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the benefit of Compassionate Appointment was denied to the writ petitioner on the ground that her husband was daily wages employee. Further, the petitioner herself was serving as temporary consolidated employee for more than 10 years and therefore, her services ought to have been regularised. This Court is able to visualize the agony of the writ petitioner. However, the legal principles are also to be taken care of by the Courts. The Courts cannot act only based on the misplaced sympathy. Showing leniency should not affect the constitutional rights of the Large Sector of the people. This Court is of an opinion that the same will affect the equality class enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, equal opportunity for public employment is a Constitutional mandate. Every eligible candidate has to secure appointment only under the Constitutional scheme and by participating open competitive selection process. Of course, the Rules of reservation is also to be followed. This being the concept to be adopted, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is appealing. However, this Court is not inclined to consider the same in view of the fact that the writ petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force and further, she was continuing only as a temporary employee and her appointment was irregular.