O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned communication in Ka.No.004366/115/Ni.A/Ni.B.3/O.3/Koa Va.Velai/ 2016, dated 09.03.2016 on the file of the third respondent and consequently, to direct the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to any last grade post to the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.

2.The case of the petitioner is that her husband, who was working as the Wireman Grade-I in the respondent Electricity Board, died while in service on 14.08.014 leaving behind his two daughters and his mother and the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made a request for compassionate appointment immediately after the death of her husband on 22.02.2016. However, the third respondent has passed the impugned communication dated 09.03.2016, rejecting the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner has not possessed 8th standard. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, the petitioner has not possessed 8th standard qualification and there are several posts available in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board without prescribing any minimum qualification. He would further submit that the very same issue came up for consideration before this Court in W.P(MD) No.20137 of 2015 in the case of Thirumaniraja Vs. The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, wherein this Court held that the qualification of ability to read and write in Tamil prescribed for the post of Watchman, Gardener, Sweeper and Sanitary Worker will not be applicable to the appointment of the dependents of the deceased employee, who died in harness. In more proceedings, for some of the posts like Watchman Gardener, Sweeper and Sanitary Worker there is no minimum qualification prescribed and the qualification is only the ability to read and write. In view of the above, the petitioner can be accommodated in any one of the last grade servants namely, Watchman, Gardener, Sweeper and Sanitary Worker, considering the indigent circumstances of the petitioner's family. However, without considering the said fact, the respondents mechanically rejected the said representation, which is unsustainable one. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the writ petition.

4.Mrs.Srimathy, learned counsel for Mr.T.Sakthikumaran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that as per the Electricity Board, the minimum qualification required for appointment is eighth standard, since the petitioner has not possessed the minimum qualification of eighth standard, her application cannot be considered. Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

6.The facts in the present case is not disputed. On perusal of the affidavit, it reveals that the petitioner is the widow of the deceased employee and she has two minor children and due to the death of the male member, the entire family is suffering in harness. Hence, she has made an application for compassionate appointment on 14.08.2014. The said application was rejected only on the ground that the petitioner has not possessed the minimum qualification of 8th standard. However, the very same issue was came up for consideration before this Court in W.P(MD) No.20137 of 2015 in the case of Thirumaniraja Vs The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, wherein Paragraph No.6 reads as follows:-

6.Earlier, I have dealt with the similar issue in A.SakilaBanu v. The Chariman, TNEB, Chennai [W.P.No. 23561 of 2009 dated 20.09.2010] elaborately, wherein, in paragraphs 25to 29, I have held thus:-

25. But the Regulations provide for pass in4th Standard and ability to read and write in Tamil for certain posts. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on Note-5to Annexure III of the Regulations. The details of posts that require only IV standard and ability to