IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

T.Pachaiveni Petitioner(s)

Vs

Krishnagiri District Educational Officer,

Krishnagiri.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent herein in DMN 1551/ A1/ 2016 dated 30.9.2016 communicated to the petitioner on 19.2.2018, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant or any other post commensurate with the educational qualification of the petitioner on

compassionate ground.

For Petitioner(s): Mrs.R. Pavithara for

Mr.Dakshayani Reddy

For Respondent(s): M/s A. Bakkiyalakshmi, GA

ORDER

The writ petition on hand is filed to call for the records of the respondent

herein in DMN 1551/ A1/ 2016 dated 30.9.2016, communicated to the petitioner on 19.2.2018, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant or any other post commensurate with

the educational qualification of the petitioner on compassionate ground.

2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the records. 3.The case of the petitioner in brief is that her father was working as a Physical Education Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, Barur and had died in harness on 04.08.2007, leaving behind the wife (the petitioner’s mother) and three daughters including the petitioner.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that since her father passed away on August 4, 2007, while in service, being eligible for compassionate appointment, she had approached the respondent and submitted a representation/application dated December 17, 2009, for being appointed to a suitable post in the school on compassionate grounds; that she had submitted all necessary documents, including her legal heirs certificate, her father’s death certificate, and her educational certificates, within a period of three years of her father's death; and that the respondent, however, failed to provide her with a compassionate appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus contends that the action of the respondent is highly illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the relevant rules and scheme.

5.The counter-affidavit and a subsequent additional counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent is filed. In the additional counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the representation/application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment, stated to have been submitted on December 17, 2009, was never entered into the Register maintained by the respondent School on that date. The register only records one application received on that day from a Graduate teacher requesting medical leave, as such, the petitioner cannot claim that the respondent failed to consider an application, submitted within the three-year period from the date of the employee’s death, for being provided with the compassionate appointment.

6.The respondent further contended in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner submitted her application for compassionate appointment only in September 2016, enclosing therewith a No-Objection Certificate from her elder siblings. As the application was submitted beyond the three-year period from the date of the deceased employee’s death, it was rejected by the respondent vide proceedings dated September 30, 2016.

7.The respondent further contended that the petitioner was informed of the rejection of her compassionate appointment claim on September 30, 2016 and she remained silent, until she filed a petition under the RTI Act on February 12, 2018, once again seeking information as to why the process for compassionate appointment had not been initiated; and that in response, the respondent furnished information on February 19, 2018, confirming th