M SASIKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed O.A.No.6250 of 1997, seeking to challenge the order, dated 28.7.97 passed by the fourth respondent. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.31256 of 2006. The respondents have filed a reply affidavit, dated Nil (2009), justifying the impugned order.

(2.) THE petitioner had passed 9th standard. His father late K.Madanagopal, while alive, was working as an Office Assistant in the Central Survey Office at Chennai. The petitioner applied for an appointment under compassionate ground. The petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant, by an order, dated 11.10.91. He also joined service as a OA on 15.10.91 and his services were regularised with effect from 16.10.91.

(3.) THE Government, after examining the proposal, by an order, dated 7.6.96, held that the petitioner did not possess the minimum general educational qualification for the post of draftsman at the time of his initial appointment and therefore, in the light of the Government Order In G.O.Ms.No.1499, Labour and Employment Department, dated 3.8.89, he may be reverted. In that order, the Government has stated that the person, who was appointed on compassionate appointment, was having an higher qualification and if there was no vacancy available, he can be appointed in the lower post and thereafter, re -appointed to the higher post whenever there is vacancy. That contingency never arose in the case of the petitioner, since the petitioner never had the minimum general educational qualification at the time when he made an application for compassionate appointment. His subsequent requisition cannot enable him to get an higher post.