ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare that para 3(c) of the Circular No.142-15-BC-PD- 18-HRD dated 08.04.2015 and Circular No.062-2018-BC-HRD-18- HRMD, dated 31.01.2018 in so far as seeking to exclude the married daughter from the definition of "dependent family member" / "wholly dependent daughter" for the purpose of getting compassionate appointment under the Scheme for compassionate appointment of the first respondent Bank and the consequential rejection order dated 25.11.2019 in Ref.No.CO:HRD:2946:1650:CAR-2018 passed by the second respondent, rejecting the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment and treating her ineligible on the ground that she has got married at the time of death of her father and hence she cannot be termed as a "wholly dependent daughter" as per para 3(c) of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment of the first respondent Bank as unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to provide her forthwith appointment on compassionate ground based on her educational qualification from the date of making of the application for compassionate appointment in the prescribed form on

30.06.2017 with all consequential benefits.

2. Heard Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioner has sought a compassionate appointment in the respondent Bank consequent to the death of her father D.Mathikumar, who died in harness on 27.01.2017. However, the application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was married at the time of the death of her father and she was not dependent on the deceased employee. There is no disagreement in respect of the death of the petitioner's father who was working as an Attender in the Bank.

4. Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that compassionate appointment ought not to have been denied to the petitioner on the ground that she is married. Law is well settled on the point that even married daughters are entitled for compassionate appointment. In support of the above contention, the attention of this Court was drawn to the judgment of this Court held in the case of Karpagam Vs. The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Aringar Anna Maaligai, Tallakullam, Madurai District, reported in 2017 SCC Online Mad 13138. In the said judgment, the earlier judgment rendered in W.P.No.20437 of 2015 (A.Vimala Vs. The Secretary of Government and others) was referred and in that, it was held that compassionate appointment cannot be denied to a married daughter of the deceased Government Servant on the ground of her marriage.

5. Mr.S.Raghunathan, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the married daughter is no doubt entitled for compassionate appointment, provided she was wholly dependent on her father. The attention of this Court was drawn to the application submitted for Leave Travel Concession applied by the deceased Mathikumar, in which, the petitioner's name was not included. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been working as a Nurse in a private hospital by name Siloam Multi Speciality Hospital. But she left the job on her own volition without any valid reasons. So it is submitted that the petitioner will not come under the category of the daughter who is wholly dependent upon the income of her father and hence, it is right on the part of the respondents to pass an order rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that the minimum qualification for the post of Attender under sub-staff cadre shall be 10th pass and the candidate should not have passed 10 + 2 qualification or its equivalent. So it is claimed that the petitioner has higher qualification and hence she cannot be considered for the appointment on compassionate grounds.

6.