The main legal point established is that in cases of compassionate appointment, the eligibility criteria, including age relaxation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, and the employment status of dependents, should be considered by the authorities.

(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.)

P. Sathasivam, J.

Aggrieved by the order of the Director of Medical Education, Chennai-10 dated 06.01.1996, order dated 19.11.2001 of the Dean, Madurai Medical College and the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 18.06.2002 made in O.A.No.1844 of 2002, the petitioner, C. Jayapal, filed the above writ petition to quash those orders and issue directions to respondents 1 and 2 to appoint him in any one of the vacancies on compassionate ground.

2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:

The father of the petitioner was working as Lab Technician Grade I in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. On 06.01.1988, he died while in service. The deceased left behind his widow Manimekalai, two sons and two daughters. As his elder brother Rajkumar had already married and is living separately from their family, the petitioner made an application to the second respondent for appointment on compassionate ground in any one of the vacancies. The second respondent has rejected his request on the ground that his elder brother is employed and the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation to the respondents with a request to reconsider his claim for appointment on compassionate ground stating that his elder brother was employed in Central Government even before the death of his father and is also living separately after his marriage. He made the said representation based on G.O.Ms.No.155 L & E Department dated 16.07.1993. The second respondent rejected his claim on the ground that he had crossed the age limit for appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, he made a representation to the second respondent on 27.11.1998, based on G.O.Ms.No.9 L&E Department dated 19.01.1998. The petitioner furnished all necessary documents on 04.01.1999 and 23.02.1999. However, the second respondent on 19.11.2001, rejected his claim on the ground that the concession for the enhancement of age would come into force from the date of issuance of the Government Order and the same is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, since his father expired on 06.01.1988. In such a circumstance, having no other remedy, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1844 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which, by the impugned order dated 18.06.2002, dismissed the original application and upheld the rejection order. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. Heard Mr. G. Ilanchezhian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. E. Sampathkumar, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2.

4. It is not in dispute that the applicant's father Chellasamy, working in the Madurai Medical College as Lab Technician Grade I, died in the year 1988. The applicant has placed death certificate dated 20.01.1988; legal heir certificate dated 28.01.1988, which shows that the deceased has left his wife, two sons and two daughters. The community certificate dated 12.07.1989 shows that the applicant Jayapal S/o. C.R. Chellasamy, belongs to Hindu "Pallan" community, which is recognised as a Scheduled Caste as per G.O.Ms.No.1773 SWD dated 23.06.1984. It is seen from the particulars furnished in the original application filed before the Tribunal that the applicant was the youngest person in the family and his elder brother Rajkumar is married and living separately. Therefore, the applicant made an application to the Dean, Madurai Medical College, Madurai for appointment on compassionate ground in any one of the vacancies as the widow/mother is residing along with him. His application was rejected on the ground that since his elder brother is employed, the applicant is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. He made further representation stating that his elder brother was an employee in t