V.TEEBAN Vs. UNDER SECRETARY(DP &AR)DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order of rejections dated 23.07.2010 and 03.08.2017 in relation to the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment are under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the father of the writ petitioner Late Thiru.Vedamani was employed as a Peon at Sri Ramamurthy Government High School, Maducarai, Puducherry and died, while he was in service on 16.03.2005. On account of the sudden demise of the writ petitioner's father, the family was in penurious circumstances and was not in a position even to lead their livelihood. However, the application submitted by the writ petitioner was rejected on the ground that no post was available during the relevant point of time and further, the writ petitioner was not possessing the requisite minimum educational qualifications. In this regard, the order of rejection was passed in proceedings dated 23.07.2010. The impugned order dated 23.07.2010, which is enclosed in page no.13 of the typed set of papers filed along with the writ petition categorically states that the case of the writ petitioner was considered with reference to the terms and conditions of the scheme of appointment and the request was rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner did not possess the educational qualifications of S.S.L.C fail and during the relevant point of time, no post was vacant. After the rejection order, dated 23.07.2010, the writ petitioner made further representation immediately. Thereafter, the writ petitioner submitted representations after a lapse of about 6 years on 01.09.2016 and 31.07.2017. The second representation given was also considered by the competent authorities and again a rejection order was passed in proceedings dated 03.08.2017. In the second rejection order, it was stated that "the circumstances of the family do not satisfy the conditions laid down by Government of India for Compassionate appointment and the family do not warrant any compassionate appointment."? The said finding was made taking note of the fact that the penurious circumstances was not prevailing on account of efflux of time and therefore, no consideration is required for the purpose of providing compassionate appointment to the writ petitioner. Challenging these two orders, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) Compassionate appointment is a scheme and a concession. The scheme of compassionate appointment being a concession can never be claimed as a matter of right. Compassionate appointment are to be made strictly with reference to the terms and conditions of the scheme and the authorities competent cannot follow the conditions as the compassionate appointment is in violation of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the event of expanding the scope of the scheme of appointment, Constitutional rights of all other eligible candidates, who all are aspiring to secure public employment is infringed. All appointments are to be made only under the constitutional schemes and by following the recruitment rules in force. In the event of expanding the scope of the scheme of compassionate appointment, the rights of all other citizen, who all are longing to secure public employment through open competitive process will be violated. Thus, the scheme being a concession must be implemented strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions and the State also should exercise restraint in expanding the scope of such special schemes in order to avoid infringement of the constitutional rights of lakhs and laksh of citizen. The young students and the meritorious persons are burning their midnight lamps for the purpose of securing public employment. In the event of providing large scale special schemes without any open competitive process, the same would cause frustration in the minds of young persons.