Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 80758
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. Kumarappan, J
S. Nethaji – Appellant
Versus
Director of Agriculture – Respondent
W.P.No.3194 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J. Pooventhera Rajan
For the Respondents: V. Sivalingam
Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and eligibility for a specific post is determined by the qualifications held on the date of application, not those acquired subsequently.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Nature of Right - It is a concession extended to eligible family members of a deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis and not a vested constitutional or legal right. (Para 6)
(B) Eligibility and Qualification - Timing of Acquisition - Eligibility for a specific post in compassionate appointment is determined by the qualifications possessed on the date of application; subsequent acquisition of qualifications does not confer a right to be appointed to a higher post. (Para 5, 7)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the post of Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds based on qualifications acquired after the date of application.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks appointment to a higher post based on qualifications acquired after the application date. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. eligibility is assessed based on qualifications available at the time of application. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. compassionate appointment is a concession and not a vested right. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. the petition is dismissed as no illegality was found. (Para 8) |
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in 3/5063/2021 dated 28.10.2021 and quash the same as illegal and unlawful consequently direct the respondents to revise the petitioner’s service as Junior Assistant from the date of his initial appointment (ie., 14.03.2014) and to provide subsequent promotions with all service and monetary benefits more particularly within a time frame as may be benefits more particularly within a time frame as may be stipulated by this Court.
O R D E R
1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent in proceedings No.A3/5063/2021, dated 28.10.2021, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to revise the petitioner’s appointment as Junior Assistant with effect from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., 14.03.2014, and grant all consequential service and monetary benefits within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s father, after rendering 24 years of unblemished service, died on 30.06.2003, before attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, the petitioner’s mother submitted an application dated 02.02.2004 before the first respondent seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner. At the time of submitting the said application, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification of SSLC for the post of Junior Assistant. However, he subsequently acquired the said qualification in the year 2010. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, on the date of his appointment, he possessed the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant. However, he was appointed as Office Assistant. Hence, he submitted a representation seeking appointment as Junior Assistant, which came to be rejected by the authorities vide the impugned order dated 28.10.2021. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, though the petitioner had acquired the requisite qualification for appointment as Junior Assistant, the same was not taken into consideration by the authorities.
3. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Government Advocate and would submit that the petitioner has no vested right to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. The very object of compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial crisis caused by the sudden demise of the sole breadwinner of the family. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that the petitioner cannot expect the Department to wait until he acquires the requisite qualification. Though the petitioner was appointed in the year 2014, on the date of his application dated 02.02.2004, he did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment as Junior Assistant. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, on the date of issuance of the appointment order, the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification for appointment as Junior Assistant. However, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner submitted his application on 02.02.2004, on which date he possessed only the qualificatio
