T. Sathiyavathi vs The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel) DPI Campus

T. Raja, J.—This writ petition has been filed by Ms.T.Sathiyavathi, D/o Mr. M.Thangavel (late) challenging the correctness of the impugned order passed by the second respondent in O.Mu.No.1081/Pi5(A1)/07 dated 03.08.2009, in and by which the District Educational Officer, Salem District, by turning down the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, held that it was impossible for a person living in indigent circumstances to pursue B.Sc.(Bio-tech) degree course.

Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner''s father late M.Thangavel, after rendering 20 years of long service from 24.9.83 to 3.2.2003 in the post of Office Assistant in the third respondent school, died on 3.2.2003, the petitioner was only aged about 16 years and she applied for compassionate appointment only on 27.8.2004. Immediately the second respondent, by proceedings bearing O.Mu.No.7725/A1/2004 dated 6.12.2004 instructed the third respondent to re-submit the application along with all the necessary certificates. The petitioner again, in the light of the above, sent a representation dated 18.1.2007 to the Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Thirumanur Post, Salem District by enclosing all the relevant documents as required by the second respondent. Once again the first respondent-Joint Director of School Education also, by his proceedings bearing O.Mu.No.1081/Pi5(A)/07 dated 21.3.2009 asked the petitioner to confirm whether her family is really in indigent circumstances and if so, how it was possible to study B.Sc.(Bio-tech) degree course by her. On receipt of the said proceeding, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation narrating the true facts as to how she got admission to B.Sc.(Bio-tech) course. In spite of all these, the second respondent, by the impugned proceedings dated 3.8.2009, passed the rejection order, disregarding the claim for compassionate appointment, on the sole ground that it is impossible for the petitioner to study B.Sc.(Bio-tech) course when her father died in service on 3.2.2003. It was also stated in the impugned as to how the youngest member of the family can seek for compassionate appointment when the eligible elder members were available in the family.

Continuing his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when it is the claim of the petitioner that her brother Mr. T.Periyasamy was pursuing B.E. Course, therefore, he was unable to make out any application for compassionate appointment, taking it as a disqualification, the second respondent has wrongly come to the conclusion that the petitioner''s brother was pursuing B.E. Course and the petitioner herself was studying B.Sc.(Bio-tech) course, would indicate that the family was not in indigent circumstances, since both of them were pursuing professional courses. That approach adopted by the second respondent is inappropriate, he pleaded. The reason is that it is not the claim of the respondents that the petitioner''s family was sufficiently rich or getting any higher income from any other source. Blindly taking into account that the petitioner''s brother was pursuing B.E. Course and the petitioner was pursuing B.Sc.(Bio-tech) course, the respondents cannot come to a lop-sided conclusion that the family was not really in indigent circumstances. When the application submitted by the petitioner on 27.8.2004 for compassionate appointment clearly mentions that the family was not having any means of livelihood after the death of the bread winner, the said vital fact has been completely overlooked. Secondly, the compassionate appointment is given only out of sheer humanitarian consideration taking into account the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family of the deceased employee would not be able to meet both the ends. It was also contended before this Court that certificates from the Tahsildar, Vazhapadi village dated 13.6.2005 were produced before the respondents to show that no one was employed in the petitioner''s family and that the family was getting only Rs.1,500/- as agricultural income and Rs.2,600/- as monthly pension. In spite of all these explanation supported by the documents, the second respondent has wrongly rejected the application, hence, the unreasonable order, he pleaded, is liable to be interfered with.

Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, taking support from the counter affidavit filed by the District Educational Officer, Salem District, the second respondent herein, urged this Court to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner''s family is not in indigent circumstances. The educational qualification of B.E. with M.B.A., possessed by the petitioner''s brother Mr. T.Periyasamy clearly shows that her family is financially sound. Secondly, the petitioner was also pursuing her B.Sc.(Bio-tech) course and at the time of filing the counter affidavit, she was studying diploma course in Co-operation in Nachiyappa Co-operative Training Institute, Ammapet, Salem. That apart, the petitioner Ms. T. Sathiyavathi, at the time of making application seeking compassionate appointment on 27.8.2004, has not submitted any requisite documents to show that he family was below the poverty line. However, after examining the correctness of the application, it was found that the petitioner''s family is having sufficient agricultural land for about 1.55 acres and also having a house. Besides the petitioner''s mother was getting a monthly pension of Rs.2,600/- from the respondents apart from Rs.1,500/- from agricultural income. Therefore, her family cannot be construed to be in indigent circumstances deserving compassionate appointment from the respondents. When the petitioner''s family cannot be treated as living in indigent circumstances, the impugned order was passed rejecting the application. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the approach adopted by the respondents is inappropriate or untenable, he pleaded.

Heard the learned counsel for parties.

It is true that the petitioner''s family is having agricultural land to an extent of 1.55 acres and a sum of Rs.1,500/- is being received as agricultural income. That apart, the petitioner''s family is also receiving a monthly pension of Rs.2,600/- from the respondents, since the petitioner''s father late Mr. M.Thangavel died while in service. These two grounds alone cannot be taken into account for denying the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, since the second respondent has also mentioned one another reason for denying the request that the petitioner''s brother Mr. T.Periyasamy, being employed in a private establishment, was getting a good income, therefore, the petitioner also cannot seek for compassionate appointment. This has been refuted by the petitioner by filing an affidavit dated 25.6.2014 before this Court stating that her brother Mr. T.Periyasamy is not working in IT company, Coimbatore as mentioned by the second respondent in the counter affidavit. Moreover, it is also stated that her brother is neither working in Government service nor in private company. While that being so, the reasons assigned by the second respondent by merely looking at the educational qualification possessed by the petitioner that she had pursued B.Sc.(Bio-tech) course and also diploma in Co-operation in Nachiyappa Cooperative Training Institute, Ammapet, Salem and the same would indicate the affluent family circumstances, in my considered view, cannot be accepted. Moreover, when education has been made a constitutional right today by the enactment of the Right to Education Act and as a matter of fact, when the petitioner has chosen a unique subject viz., B.Sc.(Bio-tech) anticipating better prospects, the reason assigned by the second respondent for rejecting the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is highly deplorable. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation whatsoever to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate orders by providing her suitable employment, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed. However, there is no order as to costs.