Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 34353
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. Asha, J
G.BHARATH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY SECRETRATARY TO GOVERNMENT – Respondent
WP No. 9829 of 2024|WMP NO. 10854 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J. Muthukumaran
For the Respondents: P. Balathandayutham, S. Suriya
Excluding male heirs from compassionate appointment in the Noon Meal Scheme is illegal and violative of the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order rejecting his application for compassionate appointment following the death of his mother, a Noon Meal Organiser. The rejection was based on G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 18.08.2021, which restricts compassionate appointments in the Noon Meal Scheme to female heirs only. The court examined whether the exclusion of male heirs is legally sustainable. It was observed that G.O.Ms.No.48 specifically applies to the posts of 'Cook' and 'Cook Assistants' and not to 'Organisers'. Furthermore, the court relied on a previous decision in W.P.No.12914 of 2024, which declared G.O.Ms.No.48 illegal and violative of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India for excluding male heirs. the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the first respondent dated 01.11.2021 is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh and provide him an appointment on compassionate grounds, on merits and in accordance with seniority subject to the availability of the vacancies.
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 pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in Letter No. 11906 / Sa Na 4-2 / 2020 / 1 dated 01.11.2021, quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to reconsider petitioners application dated 15.09.2017 and provide him appoint on compassionate grounds and to pass orders.
ORDER
Challenging the rejection of his request for compassionate appointment, the petitioner is before this Court.
The petitioner's mother C.Kalavathi was employed as an Organiser under the Tamil Nadu Noon Meal Scheme in Panchayat Union Primary School, Devarajapatnam in Kundadam Panchayat, Tiruppur District. She passed away on 04.03.2017 while in harness, leaving behind the petitioner's father, himself and his brother as her legal heirs. The petitioner who is a B.Sc., graduate, within six months of his mother's demise, on 15.09.2017 has made an application for compassionate appointment, along with necessary certificates, before the 4th respondent.
The 4th respondent has forwarded the petitioner's application along with his proposal to the 3rd respondent to appoint him on compassionate grounds. The 3rd respondent had sought for the original certificates of the petitioner from the 4th respondent and same was verified. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings dated 11.08.2018 sent a proposal to the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner, and the 2nd respondent in turn had forwarded the proposal to the 1st respondent on 18.09.2018.
Thereafter, on 27.06.2019, the 2nd respondent sent a proposal to the 1st respondent to consider the appointment of petitioner, by relaxing the provisions which restricts appointment of woman only in the Noon Meal Scheme. It appears that subsequently some internal correspondences took place between the respondents with respect of appointment of the petitioner.
The 1st respondent vide his proceedings dated 01.11.2021 had turned down the petitioner's proposal as well as that of 20 other proposals, all of which are seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, citing G.O.Ms.No.48, Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department, dated 18.08.2021, which prescribes that the male legal heirs of the deceased employee, cannot be given an employment in Noon Meal Centre. Challenging the said proceedings of the first respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.
The respondents have filed the counter affidavit which runs on the very same lines.
Heard the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before this Court.
The ground on which the petitioner's request has been turned down is G.O.Ms.No.48, Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department, dated 18.08.2021. The said G.O., would read as follows :
“ g[ul;rpj; jiyth; vk;/$p/Mh; rj;Jzt[j; jpl;lj;jpy; gzpg[hpe;J tUifapy; gzpapilf; fhykhFk; gzpahsh;fspd; Mz; thhpRjhuh;fSf;F fUiz sog;gilapy; g[ul;rpj; jiyth; vk;/$p/Mh; rj;Jzt[j; jpl;lj;jpy; rj;Jzt[ mikg;ghsh;. rikayh;. Rikay; cjtpahsh; Mf gzp epakdk; tH';Ftij nkny bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;s fhuz';fspd; sog;gilapy; ftdKld; guR Ma;t[ bra;J gpd;tUkhW MizapLfpwJ/
i)murhiz (epiy) vz;/30. rK:f eyk; kw;Wk; rj;Jzt[j; jpl;lj;Jiw. ehs;/17/06/2019?y; Vidatw;Wf;fpilapy;. g[ul;rpj; jiyth; vk;/$p/Mh; rj;Jzt[j; jpl;lj;jpy; gzpg[hpe;J gzpapilf; fhykhFk; rikayh; kw;Wk; rikay; cjtpahsUf;F Mz; thhpRjhuh;fs; kl;Lnk ,Uf;Fk; epiyapy; mt;thhpRjhuh;fSf;F fUiz sog;gilapy; g[ul;rpj; jiyth; vk;/$p/Mh; rj;Jzt[j; jpl;lj;jpy; rikayh; my;yJ rikay; cjtpahsh; gzpepakdk; tH';Fk;bghUl;L ghypd epge;jidapypUe;J tpyf;fspf;ff; nfhhp chpa Kd;bkhHpt[fis murpw;F mDg;gp murpd; Kd; mDkjp bgw;W gzp epakdk; tH';fyhk; vd;W nkw;fhdqk; murhizapd; gj;jp 4(iv) I ,uj;J bra;J Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/
ii) g[ul;rpj; jiyth; vk;/$p/Mh; rj;Jzt[j; jpl;lj;jpy; gzpg[hpe;J gzpapilf ; fhykhFk ; gzpahsh;fspd ; thhpRjhuh;fspy ; bgz; thhpRjhuUf;F kl;Lnk chpa jFj
