Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2046 (MAD)

S. Palanisankar, Kuttalam Nagapattinam v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep By Secretary To Government of Tamil Nadu Technical Education, Chennai

2013-06-17

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The father of the petitioner had worked as Head Master in Panchayat Union Middle School, Kuttalam, Nagapattinam. He died in harness on 4.8.1993. To tide over the crisis due to sudden demise of his father, the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on 3.3.2006 and he was posted in Annadhanadavaram Government High School, Annadhanadavaram, Mayiladuthurai Taluk, Nagapattinam District. His service was regularised. 2. According to the petitioner, now he has completed B.E. (Electronics and Communication) in Sastra University, after getting due permission from the respondent department. After passing B.E. Degree, he made representation, dated 13.5.2012 and 18.5.2013, for suitable post in commensurate with B.E. Qualification. According to him, he is eligible for the post of Principal, Industrial Training Institute run by the State Government and also for the post of Lecturer/ Professor in the Government Polytechnics and also to the other posts which are available under the Directorate of Technical Education as well as Directorate of Employment and Training. 3. Now, he has filed this writ petition seeking direction of this Court, to pass orders on his representations, dated 13.5.2013 and 18.5.2013. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has acquired B.E. (Electronics and Communication) qualification, after he joined in the post of Junior Assistant. Hence, he shall be considered for the post in commensurate with his qualification, such as Principal, Industrial Training Institute run by the State Government or Lecturer/ Professor in the Government Polytechnics. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am not inclined to issue direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, seeking for the post of Principal, Industrial Training Institute run by the State Government or Lecturer/ Professor in the Government Polytechnics or any other higher posts in commensurate with B.E. Qualification. The purpose of giving appointment to the family of the Government servant, on compassionate ground is to tide over the immediate crisis on the sudden demise of the Government servant. The petitioner was given appointment in 2006 as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground. The petitioner cannot claim as of right, the post of Principal, Industrial Training Institute run by the State Government or Lecturer/Professor in the Government Polytechnics or any other higher posts in commensurate with B.E. Qualification. The petitioner should compete with other qualified persons for the posts sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim as of right, the post of Principal, Industrial Training Institute run by the State Government or Lecturer/Professor in the Government Polytechnics or any other higher posts in commensurate with B.E. Qualification. The petitioner should compete with other qualified persons for the posts sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner is not able to show any rule as to his right to claim employment on compassionate ground in commensurate with his qualification. There is no public duty casts on the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to a post in commensurate with the qualification of the petitioner. 6. After considering various decisions, the Division Bench of this Court in M.Solaikannan vs. The Cabinet Secretary to the Union Cabinet, Union Secretariat, New Delhi 110 001 (2013(1) CWC 569) has held as follows: "22. In the considered opinion of this Court, unless the petitioner establishes that he is having a specific legal right and the respondents are also under the statutory obligation to carry out their duties and in the event of their failure to do so, Mandamus may be issued to compel to do something." 7. Following the aforesaid judgment, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot seek direction of this Court to consider his representation in this regard and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.