(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records ending with the order of the second respondent issued in his Proceedings No.O.Mu.Ki.Ma.Na.3/4354/2000, dated 08.08.2000, quash the same and consequently direct the first and second respondents to appoint the petitioner as Sweeper in the respondent Corporation on compassionate ground.)

1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order, dated 08.08.2000, issued by the second respondent and to direct the first and second respondents to appoint the petitioner as Sweeper in the respondent Corporation on compassionate ground.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner submits that his father P.Amasi was working as Sweeper under the first respondent and died on 05.07.1993 leaving behind the petitioner and his wife as his legal heirs. After death of his father, he approached the first and second respondents to provide him employment on compassionate ground, but they have been dragging on the issue by directing the petitioner to produce one certificate or other. As he had not received any positive response from them, he sent a representation, dated 06.07.2000, to the first respondent, enclosing all the certificates. But, the second respondent, by the impugned order dated 08.08.2000, informed him that the third respondent has been given appointment on compassionate ground. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner sent a representation to the first and second respondents stating that the third respondent is not the son of Late.Amasi and he is the son of Late.Pothaiyan and Palaniammal, who is permanently employed as Sweeper in Ward No.53 and that apart the another son of Palaniammal, namely, A.Murugesan is also already permanently employed under the first respondent. When the said Palaniammal and A.Murugesan are not the legal heirs of the deceased Amasi and as they are employed permanently under the first respondent, the appointment given to the third respondent on compassionate ground is illegal. Therefore, he sent legal notices, dated 17.09.2001 and 14.12.2001, calling upon the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the appointment given to the third respondent and to appoint the petitioner as a Sweeper in the respondent Corporation. But, there has been no response from the respondent Corporation to the said notices, which constrained the petitioner to file this writ petition seeking the relief as stated above.

3. The third respondent filed his counter affidavit stating that his father was working as Sweeper in the respondent Corporation and died while he was in service leaving behind Palaniamma (wife), Murugayi, Murugesan, Ganesan, Alagumalai (through first wife) and Pandiselvi and Kanniammal (through second wife) as his legal heirs. After the death of his father, the third respondent was appointed, as Sweeper, on compassionate ground, on 23.03.1998 and he has been working since then. Further, he submits that his father had not married any person, by name Azhagi and the petitioner is not the legal heir of his father. That apart prior to the representation, dated 06.07.2000, alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner, the third respondent has been appointed on compassionate ground in the vacancy of his deceased father. The issue as to whether the petitioner can make any claim as legal heirs of the deceased Amasi has to be decided by the Civil Court. Furthermore, the first respondent, after verifying the status, has correctly appointed him on compassionate ground in the vacancy of his deceased father and in fact his father had nominated his mother, his sister Murugayi and himself as his nominees, which have been recorded in the service register of Corporation. Therefore, the petitioner cannot make such a claim and hence the writ petition is liable to be set aside.

4. The highly competent counsel Mr.N.Ishtiaq Ahmed appearing for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was working under the first respondent. His mother gave birth to the petitioner herein through his father, P.Amasi. While his father was in service, he expired after leaving behind the petitioner and his mother. Therefore, the petitioner approached the first and second respondents for appointing him on compassionate grounds. However, the respondents had issued impugned order stating that one Ganesan was legal-heir of P.Amasi and he has been appointed on 23.03.1998. As such, the petitioners rights had been prevented.

5. The highly competent counsel Mr.P.Srinivas appearing for the first respondent submits that the second respondent had issued appointment order under compassionate grounds to one Ganesan after scrutinizing his testimonials including legal-heir certificates.

6. The highly competent counsel Mr.D.Suriyanarayanan appearing for the second respondent submits that the petitioners application had been verified and it was rejected since the petitioner had not proved that he is the legal-heir of the deceased Amasi through substantiated documents.

7. The highly competent counsel Mr.R.Subramanian appearing for the third respondent submits that the third respondent had submitted application before the first and second respondents along with necessary documents, viz., insurance particulars, family pension particulars, service records, transfer certificates, community certificate, death certificate and legal-heir certificate. It clearly proves that the third respondent is the biological son of the Late Amasi.

8. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on all sides and on perusing the typed-set of papers, this Court is of the view that in order to determine the veracity of the claim made by the petitioner that he is the legal-heir, a comprehensive enquiry is necessary before the civil forum in order to obtain succession certificate. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate civil forum to establish his legal-heir ship for getting succession certificate. Therefore, the petitioner has to approach the civil forum within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs.