JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the files of the second respondent pertaining to its order bearing Na.Ka.No.3402/2016/E1, dated 06.12.2016 and to quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to provide suitable employment on compassionate ground to the petitioner.)

1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 06.12.2016, passed by the second respondent and to direct the second respondent to provide employment on compassionate ground to the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that his father joined service as Gancooli in the office of the second respondent and during service, he died on 30.03.2015 leaving behind the petitioner, his mother, one brother and three sisters as legal heirs. According to the petitioner, he has completed Prefoundation Course and it is equivalent to 10th standard and the first year of Foundation Course is equivalent to 11th standard and the second year is equivalent to 12th standard. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he is possessing requisite educational qualification for being appointed on compassionate grounds.

3. The petitioner would submit that his mother made an application on 28.04.2015 seeking appointment on compassionate ground to him and the other legal heirs of the deceased employee had also given their consent for the same. However, the second respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 06.12.2016, rejecting the application for compassionate appointment. Challenging the same, he has filed this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent has erroneously rejected the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribes community and therefore, he is entitled for age relaxation. The learned counsel would further submit that as per Rule 12(d) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the maximum age limit prescribed in the Special Rules is not applicable to the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community. Therefore, on the sole ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent – Municipality strongly objected to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned Standing Counsel, as per Rule 11B of Tamil Nadu Municipal Service Rules, 1970, the maximum age limit for appointment by direct recruitment on compassionate grounds, shall be thirty years in respect of sons or the unmarried daughters and forty years in respect of wife or husband of the municipal employee. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court in a catena of decisions have repeatedly held that compassionate appointment cannot be made contrary to the relevant Rules. That apart the object of the compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the crisis caused as a result of the untimely death of the employee and it is not a matter of right. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the second respondent does not warrant any interference of this Court.

6. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the materials available on record.

7. The primordial contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent has rejected his request for compassionate appointment is only on the ground that he is over aged at the time of submitting application. According to the petitioner, as per Rule 12(d) of Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the maximum age limit prescribed in the special rules is not applicable to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates. Therefore, as