BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.06.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P.(MD)No.29906 of 2023 and WMP(MD)Nos.25787 & 25788 of 2023 M.Rajapandi ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai.

2. The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.

3. The Block Development Officer, Madurai East, Madurai District.

4. The Commissioner, East Panchayat Union, Madurai District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned Government order issued by the 1st respondent in G.O.(Ms)No.198, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Scheme department dated 25.10.2007 and G.O.(Ms) No.163, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Scheme department dated 18.08.2010 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any one of the post on compassionate ground in the respondents office based on the petitioners representation dated 22.06.2020.

For Petitioner : Mr. J.Jeyakumaran For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate

O R D E R

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order of the 1st respondent in G.O.(Ms)No.198, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Scheme department dated 25.10.2007 and G.O.(Ms) No.163, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Scheme department dated 18.08.2010 and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any one of the post on compassionate ground in the respondents office based on the petitioners representation dated 22.06.2020.

2. Heard Mr.J.Jeyakumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

3. The petitioner's mother, who was working as Assistant in Noon Meal Centre at Kollankulam Primary School, Madurai East, Madurai died on 30.04.2019 due to heart attack, while she was in service. Hence, the petitioner had applied for appointment under the compassionate scheme. The petitioner's application was rejected citing G.O.Ms.No.198 dated 25.10.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.163 dated 18.08.2008 which would ensure the appointment/compassionate appointment under the noon meal scheme is only for female legal heir. Since the petitioner's application has been rejected on 17.12.2020, he challenged the above order by way of filing W.P(MD)No.6858 of 2021. The said petition was also dismissed stating that the Government Order mandates the compassionate application to be given only to the female legal heir. Hence, the petitioner had filed this writ petition challenging the very Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.198 dated 25.10.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.

163 dated 18.08.2010.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above Government Orders are discriminatory in nature and it is against the constitutional provisions of the Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the deceased has got a female legal heir by name Kanimozhi, but she is not willing to accept any compassionate appointment. So far as the compassionate appointment scheme is concerned, circumstances of the each case has to be considered separately. However the general rule is that if the deceased has got female legal heir then the compassionate appointment cannot be given to the male legal heir. In other words only in the absence of a female legal heir, the appointment can be given to a male legal heir. Since the petitioner's deceased mother had both a female and male legal heir, the petitioner's application has not been considered in view of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.198 dated 25.10.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.163 dated 18.08.2010. A different meaning can not be assigned to the G.O.Ms.No.198 dated 25.10.2007. It stipulates that the compassionate appointment can be given only to the female legal heirs of t