Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and should be provided in deserving cases in accordance with the scheme's terms and conditions, while considering the efflux of time and recent Supreme Court observations.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to the order in Na.Ka.No.61323/Tho.Nu. Pa.2/2005 dt 28.02.2014 to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on Compassionate Grounds in a suitable post commensurate with her qualification, consequent on the death of her father, Thiru B.Sambasivam on 21.06.2014, while serving as Advisor in Government Industrial Training Institute, Mettur.)

1. The order of rejection, 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.B.Sambasivam was serving as Advisor in the Government Industrial Training Centre died on 21.06.2004, while he was in service. The petitioner states that her younger brother Mr.S.Prakash has completed B.E. Degree course and submitted an application for compassionate appointment in a suitable post. The Government imposed ban for appointments in between the years 2001 to 2006 and therefore, the application submitted by the brother of the writ petitioner was taken up for consideration after lifting of the ban by the Government.

3. The 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.42, Labour and Employment Department dated 12.03.2007 has stated that the compassionate appointment is permissible to Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts only. Therefore, the claim of the brother of the writ petitioner for higher post cannot be considered. Since the brother of the writ petitioner acquired B.E. Degree, he submitted an application for higher post, which was not considered.

4. Though the petitioner states that her brother submitted an application for appointment within a period of 3 years, the order impugned states that the petitioner has not submitted the application within a period of 3 years from the date of the death of the deceased employee.

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has submitted an application seeking higher post on compassionate grounds. As per the scheme of compassionate appointments, it is to be provided under the Group 'C' and Group 'D' categories and in respect of the other posts falling under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or Recruitment Board, the appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be made.

6. The fact remains that the father of the writ petitioner died on 21.06.2004. Already 18 years lapsed from the date of the death of the deceased employee. The brother of the writ petitioner even at the time of submission of the application, completed B.E. Degree and the said application was also rejected on 04.12.2007. Thus, the second application submitted by the writ petitioner is not entertainable under the terms and conditions of the scheme on compassionate appointment.

7. Under the scheme one application alone is to be filed by the legal heirs and after rejection of the said application, there is no provision to entertain second application from other legal heirs. This being the scope of the scheme, the order of rejection is in consonance of the terms and conditions of the scheme and thus, there is no infirmity as such.

8. Compassionate appointments can never be claimed as an absolute right. Compassionate appointment is a concession and the scheme formulated to mitigate the circumstances arises on account of the sudden death of an employee. Scheme of compassionate appointment is violative under the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Since there is no equal opportunity under the scheme, no selection process is conducted, merit assessment is not made and even the rules of reservations are not followed. Thus, the scheme of compassionate appointment is a special scheme, which is otherwise not in accordance with the Constitutional scheme of appointments.

9. All appointments should be made in accordance with t