The main legal point established in the judgment is that technical objections should not impede the compassionate appointment process when the applicant meets the essential criteria and the purpose of the scheme is to provide support in difficult circumstances.

1. The petitioner's husband, who served as Helper in the North Chennai Thermal Power Station, Chennai, died on 23.01.2002 due to illness, leaving behind his father, mother, two sons and one daughter. After the death of her husband, she immediately submitted her application on 23.11.2004 to the third respondent. But, the third respondent, by proceedings dated 11.02.2005, returned the application on the ground that she did not have minimum educational qualification of 8th standard pass as per the Board rules. Thereafter, with a great difficulty, the petitioner, as a private candidate, studied and completed the 8th standard successfully on 16.12.2005. After the receipt of the mark sheet, the petitioner, again, made her representation on 13.03.2006 to the third respondent requesting for appointment on compassionate ground. But, the second respondent rejected her claim for compassionate appointment, by order dated 29.04.2006, holding that she had not completed the 8th standard within three years from the date of death of her husband.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner made her application on 23.11.2004 to the third respondent, by proceedings dated 11.02.2005, the third respondent returned her application on the ground that the petitioner did not have minimum educational qualification of pass in 8th standard as per the Board Rules, for getting compassionate appointment. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner, as a private candidate, took effort and came out successfully by passing 8th standard on 16.12.2005. Therefore, she has made another representation dated 13.03.2006 to the third respondent renewing her request for compassionate appointment. On submission of her representation, she was waiting with fond hope to get a favourable order, since she has acquired the requisite educational qualification. But, the second respondent rejected her claim on 29.04.2006, by repeating the same reason that the petitioner had not passed 8th standard within three years from the date of death of her husband. At this juncture, he further contented that the reasoning given by the first respondent in the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner for getting compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner has filed the application at a belated stage, is illegal and unsustainable, for the reason that the Board Proceedings No.46, dated 13.10.1995, passed by the respondents Board states that any person seeking compassionate appointment on the death of the breadwinner in his family, should file an application within three years from the date of death of his father/mother. Therefore, in view of the above said proceedings, he contended that the respondents ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner.

3. Further, it was submitted that when the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent against the order passed by the second respondent dated 29.04.2006, the first respondent also failed to consider the plight of the petitioner. Challenging the same, when a writ petition in W.P.No.7077 of 2009 was filed, this Court, by order dated 20.04.2009, passed an order holding that it is not fair on the part of the second respondent to reject the application of the petitioner on the ground that the requisite qualification was not acquired within 3 years. Moreover, for the post of Sweeper, no educational qualification is required, except the person concerned possesses the ability to read and write. However, in the present case, the petitioner has already acquired the minimum educational of pass in 8th standard, therefore, the first respondent ought not to have rejected her appeal on 28.02.2009.

4. He, further, submitted that, in a similar circumstances, when a writ petition in W.P.No.1335 of 2006 was filed against the very same Electricity Board, a Single Judge in Madurai Bench, directed the Electricity Board to give suitable employment to the petitioner therein. Subsequ