JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records with proceedings Mu.Mu.No.579/A1/2015 dated 30.11.2016 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as unconstitutional and against the policy of Government and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant or in any other post to which he is eligible on compassionate grounds.)

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records with proceedings Mu.Mu.No.579/A1/2015 dated 30.11.2016 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as unconstitutional and against the policy of Government and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant or in any other post to which he is eligible on compassionate grounds.

2. This is a second round of litigation in this High Court.

3. Earlier, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1623 of 2015. After noting the circumstances of the case, by an order dated 18.08.2016 this Court ordered as follows:-

“6. On a careful perusal of the entire materials, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the application for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected merely on the ground that there are other senior members in the family, who have not opted to the post. Whereas in this case, the other members of the family have also given no objection certificate to the Petitioner. Further, at the time of applying, no doubt, he was a minor. However, by the above said G.O.Ms.No.155, dated 10.12.2014, the said position was clarified. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside. But, however, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents, the Petitioner cannot seek the post of Secondary Grade Teacher without completing TET. The Petitioner can only be appointed in any other post if any available on compassionate grounds on his qualification and other requirements and if he is otherwise eligible. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the Respondents for consideration afresh, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.”

4. The third respondent thereafter passed the impugned order dated 30.11.2016. The only reason for not giving the petitioner appointment on compassionate ground was on account of the fact that after the death of the petitioner’s father R.Natarajan, the petitioner’s elder sister Sudha was there and therefore the petitioner being a younger sibling was not entitled to be appointed and since the petitioner’s mother or sister did apply to appointment on compassionate ground, it cannot said the family was in an indigent circumstance.

5. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s father passed away on 19.02.2004. During the relevant period, G.O.Ms.No.225, Labour and Employment Department, dated 15.02.1972 was in force which was adopted by the Education Department also. At that point of time, the notification did not permit employment of a married daughter.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the fortuitous circumstances of the petitioner’s sister got employed later in the year 2008 and it cannot be to the disadvantage of the petitioner as an application for appointment on compassionate ground was made as early as 29.09.2006.

7. The question to be addressed in this writ petition is whether the petitioner would be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s sister though got employed on 29.02.2008 never supported her family and later eloped and got married to one Kalaimani.

8. According to the petitioner, the family is still continues to be in indigent circumsta