Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed against the rejection order passed by the Personal Assistant to District Collector (‘PADC’), and to quash the same as ultra-virus and unconstitutional and consequently direct the PADC to appoint the petitioner in any of the suitable post to which he is eligible on compassionate grounds by applying the principles of parity by re considering the representation, D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J. while quashing the impugned orders, has declared the Government order dated 18-08-2021 illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to the extent it excludes male heirs completely from compassionate appointment.
The Court also gave the following directions:
-
The respondents were directed to forward the application of the petitioner to the District Collector, Nagapattinam district for consideration for employment in any other suitable posts along with other candidates according to the seniority subject to the eligibility of the petitioner, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
The District Collector was directed to consider the same along with the other applications and depending on the application seniority appoint the petitioner on compassionate basis if he is eligible upon consideration on merits in accordance with seniority subject to availability of the vacancies.
Background:
Petitioner’s mother died in harness while in service on 05-11-2021, while serving as a Cook at Government Higher Secondary School. Thereupon, since the petitioner’s family was in indigent circumstances and immediate penury, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in 2022. The petitioner was informed that the petitioner’s mother was employed in the Noon Meal Scheme and all the posts of Noon Meal Organiser / Cook etc., are all 100% reserved for women and therefore, the Government order dated 18-08-2021 allows for compassionate appointment for women alone. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court said that as far as the Noon Meal Scheme is concerned, there cannot be any quarrel over the reservation of the said post to women. Whereas, if the employees died in harness while in service, the respondents have included the said employment also within the scheme of compassionate appointment. However, the impugned Government Order states that since all the posts are reserved only for women candidates, compassionate appointment cannot be considered in respect of male candidates. The Court said that this reasoning makes a discrimination based on sex. It not only affects the male children of female employees, but effectively puts the female employees a par below to that of their male counterparts.
Noting that the object of providing compassionate appointments is to provide succor to the family, which is in penury, the Court said that just because the woman employee has left only a male legal heir/son, then, compassionate appointment cannot be denied. The Government order is discriminatory and therefore, violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Further, the Court reiterated that if 100% of the vacancies in a particular department is reserved only for women, then, the applications have to be forwarded to the District Collector or to the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department as the case may be, to be considered under the general pool for being appointed in other suitable posts for compassionate appointment.
[G. Karthikeyan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 3159, decided on 26-06-2024]
Buy Constitution of India HERE
