JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09.04.2019 made in W.P.No.27633 of 2018.)

1. Instant writ appeal is filed against the order dated 09.04.2019 made in WP.No.27633 of 2018, wherein claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, by quashing para No.3 of G.O.Ms.No.102, RD &PR (E5) dated 13.07.2015, was rejected.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as follows:

Father of the writ petitioner/appellant viz., Shri N.Vasudevan, was employed as a Writer (Clerk) in Vasishtapuram Panchayat, Veppur Panchayat Union and died on 29.05.2015, while he was in service. Writ petitioner's father had served for about 17 years with clean records and he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. Seeking employment assistance on compassionate ground, writ petitioner submitted an application and the said application was rejected on the ground that petitioner's father died on 29.05.2015 and the very policy of the scheme of compassionate appointment, introduced, by the Government insofar as the legal heirs of the deceased Panchayat Secretaries in the Village Panchayats is concerned, in G.O.Ms.No.102, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, on 13.07.2015 cannot be extended to the case of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, writ petitioner filed WP.No.27633 of 2018, challenging the Government Order with a consequential prayer to provide appointment on compassionate grounds.

3. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, writ Court vide order dated 09.04.2019, dismissed WP No.27633 of 2018. Relevant portion of the order reads thus.

5. This Court is of the firm opinion that if a rule of relaxation is invoked in a routine manner it will amount to neutralizing and degrading the recruitment rules in force. A striking balance in between has to be adopted while exercising the powers of relaxation by the Competent Authorities. The process of recruitment and appointment shall be made only by following the recruitment rules in fore. In other words all appointments are to be made strictly by adhering the recruitment rules in force. Thus, the rule of relaxation is an exception and such an exception is to be exercised cautiously and sparingly in order to rectify the injustice caused to a particular case. Thus, the relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the candidates.

6. Rule of relaxation is a discretion granted to the Government and such a discretionary power has to be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner. Relaxation being a discretionary power has to be exercised by the competent authorities by applying the facts in a particular case and not in a mechanical way to grant certain service benefits to the similarly placed persons. Granting relaxation in one case by the Government cannot be cited as a precedent in other cases. In view of the fact that the relaxation is an exception and cannot be followed in a routine affair. Thus, this Court is of the firm view that all the appointments and regularizations are to be made only by following the recruitment rules in force strictly and no relaxation can be granted by citing other cases and the Government also to be cautious while exercising the powers of relaxation under Rule 48 in certain cases.

7. The consequences of exercising the power of relaxation under Rule 48 in a routine manner will affect the right of the employees who were appointed regularly in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. In other words, there are large number of employees who are working in the Departments, were fully qualified and who were appointed in accordance with the recruitment and service rules in force. Any relaxation granted under Rule 48 should not have an impact of depriving those candidates, who were appointed regularly in accordance with the rules in force, specificall