K.MEENA Vs. HOME SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection dated 21.03.2017, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The father of the writ petitioner Late.Thiru.P.M.Kamala Kannan was employed as Police Constable with Motor Transport Chennai Police, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai. The father of the writ petitioner passed away on 19.09.2003, while he was in service. The mother of the writ petitioner pre-deceased her father and on account of the sudden death of the father, the family was in penurious circumstances and was not in a position to lead their livelihood. However, no application seeking compassionate appointment was preferred during the relevant point of time and the application itself was filed by the writ petitioner only on 29.08.2016, after a lapse of about 13 years from the date of demise of the deceased employee. Thus, the authorities competent rejected the application on the ground that the application seeking compassionate appointment was filed after a lapse of about 3 years and therefore, the said application cannot be entertained in view of the terms and conditions of the scheme of compassionate appointment. Challenging the said rejection order, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession. Thus, the compassionate appointment can never be claimed as a matter of right. The Scheme being a Special scheme in nature, the said scheme is to be implemented strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions. The deviation, dilution or expansion of the scheme of compassionate appointment would cause infringement of the right of all other citizens, who all are aspiring to secure public employment by participating in the open competitive process. If such special schemes are not restricted, the opportunity to the citizen at large will be affected. Equal opportunity in public employment is the Constitutional mandate. The special scheme, which is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised restrictedly and the State cannot expand the scope of the scheme, so as to affect the rights of the citizen at large. Lakhs and Lakhs of youth of our great Nation are aspiring to secure public employment by burning their midnight lamp and by hard work to participate in the open competitive process. If such opportunities are restricted by expanding the scope of such special scheme, the State is failing in its duty to implement the Constitutional principles and perspectives.