In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 06.02.2008 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition No.6960 of 2007 (O.A.No.4845/02) G.Gokulakrishnan .. Petitioner v 1. The Director of School Education College Road, Chennai-6. 2. The District Educational Officer Krishnagiri at Dharmapuri District. 3. The Headmaster Government Hr.Sec.School Thali High School Thali, Dharmapuri District. .. Respondents (Prayer is amended as per order of this Court dated 06.02.2008 made in M.P.No.1 of 2008) 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 order passed by the second respondent in his Na.Ka.No.269/A1/2004 dated 30.08.2007 passed by the second respondent herein, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to provide appointment on compassionate grounds according to his qualification in Education Department forthwith. For petitioner : Mr. R.Thamaraiselvan For respondents : Mr. A.Arumugham AGP O R D E R The petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified Mandamus and quash the order of the second respondent and consequently praying to direct the second respondent to provide appointment on compassionate grounds according to his qualification in Education Department forthwith. 2. Facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner's father one K.P.Ganesan who had served in defence for 22 years and later isn Thali High School, Education Department for six years as Office Assistant, died on 27.06.1995, while he was in service. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for a suitable job on compassionate ground on 01.12.1995 and submitted all the particulars and documents. The petitioner received a letter from the first respondent dated 20.02.2002, on 01.03.2002, wherein it is stated that as per G.O.No.212 Employment and Administration Reforms dated 29.11.2001, all recruitment to the posts have been stopped by the Government. Hence, left with no other option, the petitioner has filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal which has been subsequently re-numbered as writ petition. 3. The second respondent in his counter-affidavit has stated that the application requesting appointment on compassionate ground was received on 05.12.1996. The particulars of the petitioner were submitted to the first respondent, with a request to make necessary entries in the seniority list for considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. On 04.01.2001, the petitioner has submitted the particulars as called for by the first respondent in his proceedings dated 23.07.2000. Again the first respondent in his proceedings dated 21.12.2001 instructed the petitioner to produce the indigent certificate and a detailed statement of the benefits received by the family of the deceased Ganesan, and also the expenditure incurred. The above particulars were submitted by the petitioner on 07.02.2001. The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel) in his proceedings dated 02.07.2007 has stated that after the date of death of the Government Servant, his first legal heir (wife) had failed to apply for a job on compassionate grounds which proved that the family of the deceased government servant was not in indigent circumstances. For the abovesaid reasons, the second respondent by his order dated 30.08.2007 rejected the request of the petitioner. The respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. A perusal of the proceedings dated 20.02.2002 of the first respondent addressed to the Special Officer, Chief Minister's Cell, Secretariat, Chennai.9, reveals that the application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground, was pending consideration for two reasons (i) there was a ban imposed in G.O.No.212 Employment and Administration Reforms dated 29.11.2001 to fill up the posts in the Government. (ii) that the first legal heir of the deceased Ganesan (wife of the said Ganesan) was asked to furnish the reasons as to why she did not chose to apply for compassionate appointment, despite her age and educational qualification. 6. During the pendency of the writ petition, the District Educational Officer, Krishnagiri, in his proceedings dated 30.08.2007 has rejected the request of the petitioner on the grounds (i) that the wife of the deceased Ganesan has produced a medical certificate in the year 2001, to the effect that she is physically incapacitated and (ii) that the first legal heir of the deceased, wife has not applied for appointment on compassionate grounds, which would show that the family of the deceased was not in indigent circumstances. On receipt of the proceedings stated supra, the petitioner has taken out an application in M.P.No.1 of 2008 praying to amend the prayer and the petitioner has also been ordered. 7. Averments in the supporting affidavit to M.P.No.1 of 2008 discloses that consequent to the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner has made an application on 01.12.1995 itself and in response to the same,District Educational Officer, Krishnagiri, the second respondent, in his proceedings dated 25.11.1996 has called for certain particulars from the Headmaster Thali Higher Secondary School, Thali, the third respondent. Lateron, the Director of School Education Chennai, the first respondent, by letter dated 29.07.2000 has directed the petitioner to send the death certificate, legal heir certificate, income certificate, property certificate, indigent certificate and educational qualification and declaration for considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. According to the petitioner, he had furnished all the necessary testimonials required by the second respondent that he is also fully qualified to be provided with a suitable appointment, depending upon his educational qualification. 8. Merely because the wife of the deceased had not applied for appointment on compassionate grounds that cannot be the reason to presume that the family was not in indigent circumstances. When the petitioner has produced the income certificate, property certificate and indigent certificate from the concerned revenue authorities, that should alone be the criteria for deciding the financial status of the individual, seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The inference of the authority is purely on surmise. The reasons stated by the respondents are arbitrary and without any basis and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. Under the scheme of compassionate appointment, to mitigate the financial hardship caused due to the sudden demise of the Government servant, employee of a public sector undertaking, appointments are provided to any qualified member of the family subject to the condition that the applicant must produce declaration from the other qualified members of the family to the effect that there is no rival claim, that no other member of the deceased family is already in government service, that the family is in indigent circumstances. 10. Before the authority, medical certificate has been produced by the petitioner to prove that his mother, viZ.,the first heir of the deceased, is physically incapacitated to undertake any employment. In the absence of any rival claim, the respondents ought to have considered the testimonials submitted by the petitioner more particularly, certificates issued by the Revenue officials in support of the financial condition of the deceased family. As the ban imposed by the government has subsequently been lifted, the respondents are bound to consider he case of the petitioner. The delay in considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, due to the pendency of this writ petition should not be put against the petitioner. If required, the authorities may seek for relaxation of age also. 14. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, suitable to his educational qualification, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. kvsg To 1. The Director of School Education, Chennai 2. The District Educational Officer, Krishnagiri at Dharmapuri District 3. The Headmaster,Government Hr.Sec.School Thali High School Thali, Dharmapuri District. 1 cc to Mr.R. Thamariselvan, Advocate, SR. 5903 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR. 6004 W.P.No.6960 of 2007 SSN (CO) kk 18/6