V.A. Ravichandran vs The State of Tamil Nadu

The appellant, who was the writ petitioner, was appointed as record clerk on 28.5.1980 by the District Collector, Dharmapuri District, on compassionate ground on account of death of his father on 15.1.1980. While working as record clerk, the appellant was selected and regularised on the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 05.1.1991. The appellant made an appeal petition/representation dated 22.7.2014 to the second respondent through proper channel i.e. District Collector, seeking regularisation on the post of Junior Assistant with effect from the date he was appointed on the post of record clerk i.e. on 28.5.1980 on the basis of Government orders viz., (i) G.O. Ms. No. 444 Labour and Labour Department, dated 23.2.1981; (ii) G.O. Ms. No. 888, Rural Development Department, dated 8.6.1984; (iii) G.O. No. 11, Rural Development Department, dated 12.1.93 and (iv) G.O. No. 164, Rural Development Department, dated 7.8.1996. The said appeal petition was forwarded to the second respondent by the third respondent. The second respondent, by communication dated 8.6.2005 informed the third respondent that the services of the appellant on the post of Junior Assistant cannot be regularised with retrospective effect. Again, the second respondent, vide letter dated 7.1.2008, informed the third respondent/District Collector that since the appellant was selected and appointed on the post of Junior Assistant subsequently on 15.1.1991, his services cannot be regularised on the post of Junior Assistant with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of his appointment as record clerk.

The appellant herein preferred a writ petition questioning the legality of the aforesaid communications dated 8.6.2005 and 7.1.2008. The case of the appellant before the Writ Court was that he ought to have been appointed as Junior Assistant as per G.O. Ms. No. 888, Rural Development Department, dated 8.6.1984 and G.O. Ms. No. 444 Labour and Labour Department, dated 23.2.1981 wherein it was provided that a person can be appointed to higher post keeping in view of his qualification with concurrence of the TNPSC. Thus, since the appellant had requisite qualification for the post of Junior Assistant on the date of his appointment as record clerk, his appointment should be regularised on the post of Junior Assistant from the said date. The learned single Judge, having considered all the aspects of the matter, came to the conclusion that the appointment of the appellant on compassionate ground itself was a concession and as such, the appellant cannot claim regularisation on the basis of his qualification for the post of Junior Assistant subsequently with retrospective effect on the ground that he possessed requisite qualification even on the date when he was appointed as record clerk.

We have examined the relevant Government Orders and other relevant documents on record and we have also heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

The aforesaid Government Orders enable the authorities to consider the candidate for appointment even on the higher post keeping in view the requisite qualification of the candidate on compassionate ground with concurrence of the TNPSC. However, it does not mandate that all the candidates, who are having higher qualification, be appointed on the higher post on the basis of requisite qualification. It is well settled preposition of Law that the appointment on compassionate ground is not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. The appointment on compassionate basis is to tide over the difficulties befallen the dependents of the deceased employee and as such, the dependent of the deceased employee cannot claim a particular post as a matter of right. The appellant was appointed on the post of record clerk. Thereafter, he continued in the same capacity till he was selected and regularised on the post of Junior Assistant on 05.1.1991. Subsequently, the appellant cannot claim regularisation on the post of Junior Assistant with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from the date of his appointment as record clerk, as a matter of right. There is no flaw in the order of the learned single Judge warranting interference.

Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed at admission stage. No costs.