Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Madras dealt with a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds based on her representation dated 05.08.2021. The petitioner, K. Kaladi Chandanakalyani, sought compassionate appointment in the Judicial Department, Puducherry. The respondents were the Hon'ble Chief Judge, Judicial Department, Puducherry; the Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry; and the Law Secretary, Ministry of Law Secretariat, Government of Puducherry. The petitioner had submitted an application for compassionate appointment. She claimed that her representation dated 05.08.2021 had not been acted upon and sought a mandamus to consider and appoint her. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that compassionate appointments are limited to 5% of vacancies under the direct recruitment quota as per G.O.Ms.No.27 dated 26.04.2018. The Selection Committee for Compassionate Appointments met on 15.11.2022 and considered 11 applications, including the petitioner's. The petitioner was ranked fourth with 48 points based on a point-based merit system. The first-ranked candidate with 58 points was rejected because he was a second-class heir of the deceased government servant. The second-ranked candidate with 55 points was offered appointment to the post of Junior Clerk but subsequently resigned. Therefore, the third-ranked candidate with 51 points was issued an offer of appointment and joined service. The respondents contended that they had followed the rules and guidelines for compassionate appointments. The court identified the legal issue as whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus for compassionate appointment when her application had been considered and she was not selected due to lower merit ranking and limited vacancies. The petitioner argued that her representation should be considered and she should be appointed on compassionate grounds. The respondents argued that her application was duly considered and she could not be appointed because the vacancy was filled by a higher-ranked candidate. The court reasoned that mere submission of an application is insufficient for compassionate appointment. The penurious circumstances and other criteria under the scheme must be scrupulously followed. The terms of the scheme must be followed while considering applications for compassionate appointment. The court found that the petitioner's application was indeed considered by the Selection Committee, and she ranked fourth with 48 points. Since the third-ranked candidate was appointed to the available vacancy, there was no scope to direct her appointment. The court held that in view of the factual position, the relief sought could not be granted. The High Court dismissed the writ petition with no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Strict Adherence to Scheme and No Mandamus When Lower Merit - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for compassionate appointment based on her representation dated 05.08.2021. The court held that mere submission of an application is insufficient and that penurious circumstances and scheme criteria must be scrupulously followed; the counter showed her application was considered and she ranked fourth with 48 points, while a higher-ranked candidate was appointed under the 5% quota in G.O.Ms.No.27 dated 26.04.2018. Held that in view of the factual position, the relief sought could not be granted and the writ petition was dismissed with no costs (Paras 2-4). B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Ranking and Vacancy Limitation Under Government Order - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The Selection Committee met on 15.11.2022 and considered 11 applications; the petitioner ranked fourth with 48 points. The first-ranked candidate was rejected as second-class heir, second-ranked was offered Junior Clerk but resigned, and third-ranked accepted appointment. The court held that the respondents followed the rules and guidelines and therefore no direction could be issued to appoint the petitioner (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and appoint her on compassionate grounds when her application was considered and she ranked fourth under the 5% vacancy quota.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. No costs.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is not a right
- terms of scheme must be scrupulously followed
- mere submission of application is insufficient
- ranking under point-based merit determines selection
- writ of mandamus cannot issue when selected candidate already appointed
