Subsequent equivalence certification cannot retrospectively upgrade an accepted compassionate appointment or unsettle settled seniority.

The petitioner’s father, a Foreman in the Electricity Board, died in service on 05.05.2008.

The petitioner, who possessed an M.S. (Software) degree, was appointed as a Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds with effect from 23.09.2009 because, at the relevant time, his degree was not supported by an equivalence certificate treating it as equivalent to a B.E./B.Tech. in Computer Science.

In 2022, G.O.(Ms.) No.58, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 06.05.2022, declared the petitioner’s M.S. (Software) qualification equivalent to the relevant engineering degree.

Relying on the Government Order and the Full Bench decision in Nadar Thanga Shubha Laxman A. v. State of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner sought retrospective appointment as Technical Assistant/Assistant Engineer from the date of his initial appointment, with consequential seniority, promotion and monetary benefits.

The respondents contended that compassionate appointment was not a matter of right, that the petitioner had accepted appointment as Junior Assistant without demur, and that he had subsequently received promotions as Assistant, Assistant Programmer and Assistant Engineer.

They also raised delay, res judicata, and the prospect of unsettling the seniority of persons who were not impleaded.

The challenge was directed against the departmental Memo dated 12.12.2023, served on 16.02.2024.

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an exception to regular recruitment, intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the deceased employee’s family; consequently, it must be governed strictly by the applicable departmental scheme and guidelines.

The Court relied on I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162, for the rule that a person who accepts a lower post without demur cannot subsequently claim entitlement to a higher post.

The Court also applied the doctrines of laches, res judicata and acquiescence, and the established principle that settled seniority should not ordinarily be disturbed, particularly where affected employees have not been impleaded.

Although the Full Bench in Nadar Thanga Shubha Laxman A. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2014 (3) CTC 43, held that an equivalence certificate may relate back to the date of acquisition of the qualification, that principle did not justify reopening the petitioner’s settled service position in the present circumstances.

The Court held that the petitioner’s qualification was not equivalent to the prescribed engineering degree when his compassionate appointment was made in 2009; the equivalence arose only through the 2022 Government Order.

Although the petitioner relied on the retrospective effect recognised in Nadar Thanga Shubha Laxman, the Court found that the principle could not be used to “turn back the clock” after the petitioner had accepted the Junior Assistant post, received three promotions, and served in the department for over a decade.

His prolonged acceptance of the appointment and subsequent promotions amounted to acquiescence, and his delayed challenge was barred by laches.

Re-designating his initial appointment would also unsettle seniority and adversely affect employees who were not parties to the proceedings.

The Court therefore distinguished the cases relied upon by the petitioner as arising under different schemes, particularly the School Education Department, and declined to rewrite the Electricity Department’s compassionate-appointment scheme.

It held that the 2022 equivalence certificate did not entitle him to retrospective appointment as Technical Assistant or Assistant Engineer from 23.09.2009, particularly after his acceptance of the Junior Assistant post, subsequent promotions, and prolonged delay.

The writ petition challenging Memo No.034965/G.551/N-G.172/2022 dated 12.12.2023 was dismissed, with no order as to costs.