JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, calling for the records in Order Na.Ka.No.A.P.Ni/6/2059/2017 dated 21.01.2017 and Na.Ka.No.A.P.Ni/60/200667/2017 dated 21.03.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently to direct the said 3rd respondent to reconsider the petitioner's representation dated 29.08.2016 for appointment on compassionate grounds, within a stipulated time frame.)

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.

4. This being the principles to be followed, the order of rejection passed by the respondent on the ground that the application itself is belated is not infirm and in accordance with the scheme of compassionate appointment.

5. The fact remains that the deceased employee passed away on 19.09.2003 and the application itself was filed on 29.08.2016 after a lapse of 13 years. Thus, this Court is not inclined to consider the case of the writ petitioner.

6. This Court is of an opinion that consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is to be construed as violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is only in the nature of concession and therefore does not create a vested right in favour of the claimant. A compassionate appointment scheme is a non-statutory scheme and is in the form of a concession and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the claimant to be enforced through a writ proceeding. A compassionate appointment is justi