Compassionate appointment is a concession, not an absolute right, and cannot be claimed for a specific post.

The appellant’s father, an Assistant at TAHDCO, died in service on 11.09.2005

The appellant was appointed as a Record Clerk on compassionate grounds on 10.01.2007, possessing an SSLC qualification at the time

He subsequently received two promotions: first to Junior Assistant in 2015, and then to Assistant in 2021

The appellant filed a representation seeking retrospective appointment to the post of Junior Assistant from the year 2007, which was rejected by the authorities

He challenged this rejection via WP No. 255 of 2022, which was dismissed on 17.07.2023; the current intra-court appeal seeks to set aside that dismissal

1. Whether a candidate appointed on compassionate grounds can claim a specific post or retrospective appointment as an absolute right.

2. Whether the appellant was entitled to the post of Junior Assistant at the time of initial appointment despite the post falling under the purview of TNPSC.

The Court applied the principles governing compassionate appointment, establishing it as a concession rather than an absolute right, intended solely to mitigate the penurious circumstances of a deceased employee's family

The scheme is governed by the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment and the specific terms and conditions of the government policy, which must be scrupulously followed

The court noted that recruitments to specific cadres like Junior Assistant are governed by statutory bodies, namely the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC)

The Court reasoned that since the appellant only possessed an SSLC qualification at the time of his initial appointment in 2007, he was appropriately placed in the post of Record Clerk

It observed that the post of Junior Assistant fell under the recruitment purview of the TNPSC, and the appellant could not bypass these regulations through a claim for compassionate appointment

The Court emphasized that the object of the scheme is not to provide a specific rank or guaranteed career progression, but to provide immediate financial relief to an indigent family

Given that the appellant had already accepted the appointment and had since been promoted twice to the level of Assistant, the Court found no legal grounds to grant further retrospective relief

The Court dismissed the Writ Appeal, confirming that the appellant was not entitled to any further relief beyond the promotions already granted; all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed