logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 7251 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : WA No. 835 of 2024 & CMP No. 5804 of 2024
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
Parties : The District Collector Nilgiris District & Others Versus R. Indra
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellants: K. Rajesh, Government Advocate. For the Respondent: R .Singaravelan, Senior Counsel for R.D. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.\r\n
Date of Judgment : 30-09-2026
Head Note :-
Letters Patent - Clause XV -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Clause XV of the Letters Patent

2. Catch Words:
- compassionate appointment
- limitation
- seniority
- vested right

3. Summary:
The District Collector filed a writ appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 15.09.2023 in WP No.20307 of 2023. The respondent sought a compassionate appointment after the death of her father, a government employee, alleging timely filing, while the government argued a nine‑year delay. The court held that compassionate appointments are a concession, not a vested right, and must be granted based on government‑prescribed criteria and seniority. It emphasized that granting the appointment out of turn would prejudice other candidates. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petition closed without costs.

4. Conclusion:
Appeal Dismissed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in WP No.20307 of 2023.)

S.M. Subramaniam J.

The District Collector preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.20307 of 2023.

2. The respondent filed a writ petition seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The father of the writ petitioner was a Government employee and died on 12.01.2009. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants would submit that the application was received in the year 2018 after a lapse of 9 years. However, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the step mother of the respondent filed an application within the time limit.

3. Be that as it may. Compassionate appointment is a concession and cannot be claimed as a vested right. Interference by the Courts overlooking the seniority would infringe the right of other applicants waiting for compassionate appointments in the order of seniority. Compassionate appointment is to be provided based on the criteria fixed by the Government under the scheme of appointment.

4. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the step-mother of the respondent has been already registered and in the seniority. Learned Government Advocate would submit that the names will be considered subject to availability of the post in the order of seniority. If that being the submission made, the case of the respondent is also to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated under the Scheme in the order of seniority and as per the rules applicable to appointment.

5. With the above observations, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal