The petitioner viz., M.Indra, W/o.M.Ramakrishnan, is the daughter of the deceased M.Pushpa who worked as II Grade Female Attendant in the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai – 10 and she died in harness on 28.11.2008. The petitioner's father Munnusamy already died on 06.01.1991.

2. The petitioner's mother left two legal heirs namely;

(1) M.Manjula and (2) M.Indira. The elder sister of the petitioner herein M.Manjula is a mentally retarded patient and she has been diagnosed as behavioural problem with seizure disorder. In this regard, the Medical Certificate was issued by the Director, Institute of Mental Health, Chennai – 10, on 23.07.2009.

3. After the sudden death of her mother viz., M.Pushpa, the petitioner made an application for the appointment under compassionate ground on 12.08.2011 before the respondent. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a petition for appointment of guardian Under sections 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54 of Mental Health Act of 1987 for the custody of elder sister, M.Manjula, aged about 33 years who is also one of the legal heirs of the petitioner's mother in M.H.O.P.No.161 of 2010, before the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, and passed an order of custody on 23.07.2010.

4. The petitioner while submitting his representation before the respondent had requested to give an appointment under the compassionate ground for him. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent has given a reply on 04.03.2012 stating that in M.H.O.P.No.161 of 2010, dated 23.07.2010, the petitioner was employed. Therefore, as per the Court order, employment opportunity cannot be given to a person who is already employed. On seeing the reply dated 04.03.2012, the petitioner came to know in the order it is wrongly mentioned that “the petitioner was employed”.

5. Therefore, this petitioner again approached the said Court through her Advocate by filing a petition on 18.02.2014 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 152 of C.P.C to rectify, delete and amend the mistaken observation in the order passed in M.H.O.P.No.161 of 2010 by the Learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

6. Considering the petitioner's case, the Learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, issued amendment order by deleting the word. “The petitioner was employed” and issued the old order copy on 05.03.2014 in C.M.P.No.340 of 2014, in M.H.O.P.No.161 of 2010. After rectifying the above mistake in the above order through the Competent Court, this petitioner approached the respondent once again and submitted fresh application on 12.03.2014, in which she has explained all her sufferings and hardships in maintaining mentally retarded sister without any monthly income and requested to give suitable appointment to the petitioner by considering the representation dated 12.03.2014. But no action was taken by the respondent in this regard. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.22286 of 2015 for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider her representation dated 12.03.2014.

7. Considering the prayer, this Court by order dated 24.07.2015, passed an order, directing the respondent to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 12.03.2014, relating to compassionate appointment on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said order, this petitioner shall once again give a representation to the respondent by enclosing the copy of the same.

8. On receipt of the said representation along with order copy in W.P.No.22286 of 2015, the respondent has passed the present impugned order stating that the legal heirs certificate has been issued by the Revenue Department in which it is stated that the petitioner M.Indra is a married woman. Therefore, as per the Government Rules, no compassionate appointment will be given to a married woman. Hence, her request was rejected by