K. GOVINDARAJ Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father S. Krishnamoorthi was working as a wireman in the office of the Assistant Engineer, Vaniyampadi/South Section, Thirupattur Division. While he was in service he died due to kidney failure on 25.08.1990, leaving behind his wife Rajeswari, two daughters and two sons as his legal heirs. To mitigate the hardship, the petitioner's mother made application on 16.04.1993 seeking appointment to the petitioner's brother, K. Venkatesan on compassionate ground. However, the third respondent rejected the application on the ground that he did not pass VIII standard. After that, the petitioner made representations to the third respondent seeking for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, by impugned letter dated 27.12.2017, the third respondent rejected his claim on the ground that he has not fulfilled the criterion for appointment on compassionate ground as per board proceedings. Hence, the petitioner has filed this present Writ Petition seeking for certiorari.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father died in the year 1990 and the petitioner's mother made application seeking employment for his elder son within a period of three years on 16.04.1993, which was rejected on the ground that he has not completed VIII standard. After passing VIII standard, the petitioner's brother again made representation on 14.02.2007 for appointment on compassionate ground, which was rejected by the third respondent on 20.03.2007 on the ground that he has crossed the age limit of 30 years. Thereafter, The petitioner made representations on 18.02.2008, 10.12.2010 and 25.02.2013 and the said application was rejected on 31.07.2013 and again the petitioner made another representation to reconsider the order of rejection dated 31.07.2013 and the same was also rejected on 27.12.2017 on the ground that the application was not made within a period of three years and at the time of the petitioner's father demise, the petitioner had not attained majority and he was a minor.

(3.) On perusal, it is seen that the petitioner's father died on 25.08.1990 and in the earlier occasion petitioner's mother made application on 16.04.1993 and subsequently his brother made representations and the same were rejected by the third respondent on 20.03.2007. In the present case, the petitioner's mother did not challenge the earlier rejection order and the petitioner filed another application belatedly, without challenging earlier rejection order, which is not permissible.