The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strict adherence to the terms and conditions of compassionate appointment, the consideration of indigent circumstances, and the verification of the family's sources of income. The judgment also highlights the potential violation of equal opportunity in public employment and the need for field inquiries to ascertain genuine indigent circumstances.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent in Lr.No.32764/Ni.Pi.3/U.3/Ko.Vasisu Velai/2014 dated 29.11.2014 and quash the same and direct the respondents to provide suitable employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.)

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 I.Paul was working as Lineman in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and died on 26.09.1993 while he was in service. At the time of the death of his father, the petitioner was a minor. Therefore, no application was submitted seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The first application for compassionate appointment though stated to be made in the year 1994 by the mother of the writ petitioner, the respondents have denied the same by stating that no such application was received. The petitioner has not furnished any acknowledgment for the application said to have been filed in the year 1994.

3. The petitioner on attaining the age of majority submitted an application on 01.02.2007 which was acknowledged by the respondents and the said application was rejected on the ground that it was submitted beyond the period of three years and therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the scheme not entertainable. Again the petitioner submitted an application in the year 2013 which was also not considered. The petitioner submitted an application under the Right to Information Act which was replied by the Public Information Officer in letter dated 29.01.2013 wherein it is stated that the application was submitted beyond the period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee and therefore, the application was rejected. Further, it is stated that the petitioner has not completed VIII Standard during the relevant point of time. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has completed VIII Standard but discontinued during IX Standard.

4. Finally, the petitioner submitted an application on 21.10.2014. The said application was rejected in proceedings dated 29.11.2014 which is impugned in the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the delay in submitting the application, i.e. beyond the period of three years cannot be ground as during the relevant point of time the Board proceedings permits such application for grant of compassionate appointment. The Board proceedings which was in force during the relevant point of time reveals that there is no bar for submitting an application beyond the period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee. However, subsequently the said Board proceedings were modified and three years period has been fixed in view of the fact that several such applications seeking appointment on compassionate grounds were submitted before the Board after several years which caused difficulty in providing appointment on compassionate grounds.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even the Hon-ble Supreme Court in recent judgment has made an observation that the authorities are not considering the application for compassionate appointment within a reasonable period of time. The delay in considering the application results in denial of the benefit of appointment under the scheme and the authorities must consider the same within a reasonable period of time. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court stating that the period of three years cannot be applied as during the relevant point of time, there is no bar for submission of the application beyond the period of three years.

7. In this context, the respondents have stated that as per B.P.No.46 dated 13.10.1995, t