CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and re-appoint the applicant in any post in the Police department commensurate with his qualification as the only legal heir of the deceased Constable Narayanasami who expired on 10.10.1986 while in harness on compassionate ground.) The petitioner filed O.A.No,601 of 1998, seeking to challenge the order, dated 4.5.94 rejecting his request for re-appointment. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No,35545 of 2006.

(2.) THE petitioner's father was appointed as a Police Constable. He died in harness on 10.10.1986. THEreafter, the petitioner requested for a compassionate appointment on the ground of the death of his father. At that time, the petitioner did not have the minimum general educational qualification, i.e. a pass in the SSLC to get appointed to the post of Junior Assistant. THE petitioner in order to get that appointment corrected his mark sheets as if he had passed the SSLC. Conceding the request of the petitioner, he was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the office of the Tamil Nadu Special Police, II Battalion at Avadi, by an order, dated 17.11.86.

(3.) THE Supreme Court has held that an appointment secured by fraud cannot be condoned. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions v. Pindiga Sridhar reported in (2007) 13 SCC 352 to show that an appointment obtained on compassionate ground on false grounds was set aside by the court. It is necessary to refer to the following passage found in para 7 of the said judgment, which is as follows: