O R D E R

The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner was a married daughter even before the death of the deceased employee and was aged about 36 years is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that her father was employed as a Watchman in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and died on 19.10.2011, while he was in service. The petitioner states that her father was survived by her mother namely Mannammal, her elder brother Mr.Murugan and younger brother Mr.Viramani. The petitioner states that her father was the sole earning member of the family and therefore, the family was in indigent circumstances.

3. The petitioner states that herself and her brothers got married during the life time of her father and therefore, the petitioner submitted an application on 05.03.2012, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondents rejected the said application on the ground that her elder brother has crossed the prescribed age limit of 35 years at the time of death of her father. The mother of the writ petitioner submitted an application on

19.12.2012 and the said application was also rejected by the 2nd respondent in proceedings dated 31.12.2013, stating that the petitioner being the married daughter, is not eligible for compassionate appointment under the scheme applicable under the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. Thus, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contented that the married daughter is also eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and therefore, the authorities ought to have been considered the family circumstances of the writ petitioner. The petitioner furnished all the relevant documents along with the application and the said application was not considered without any valid reason.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).No.751 of 2015 dated 14.07.2015 and the Division Bench judgment in the case of C.Jayapal Vs. The Director of Medical Education, Chennai reported in [2005 (5) CTC 655].

6. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the orders passed in writ petitions to establish that married daughters are also eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. Further, the petitioner established her indigent circumstances by submitting necessary certificate from the Tahsildar and therefore, the case of the writ petitioner ought to have been considered by the respondents for providing appointment on compassionate grounds.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents objected the said contention by stating that the petitioner was a married daughter even before the death of the deceased employee and further, her elder brother had crossed the age limit and under those circumstances, the respondents had granted liberty to submit an application for the younger brother of the writ petitioner Mr.Viramani. In the event of submitting any such application, the same will be considered by the competent authorities. In spite of the communication in this regard by the respondents, the petitioner has not responded. Therefore, the very contentions raised by the petitioner are incorrect and the family cannot be considered as in indigent circumstances.

8. It is brought to the notice of this Court that during the relevant point of time, the father of the writ petitioner died. As per the scheme, married daughters are not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. Further, the elder brother of the writ petitioner has crossed the age of 35 years as prescribed for appointment on compassionate grounds and therefore, the very application submitted by the petitioner is untenable. 9. As far as the earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Division Bench and the Learned Single Judges are concerned, those judgments are d