Compassionate appointment not prasadam or charity: HC

‘Stifling press will see gossip, rumours masquerade as truth’

CHENNAI: Observing that appointment on compassionate grounds was neither “prasadam” to be given to all those who visit the temple nor was it an act of charity, the Madras High Court came down heavily on BSNL for keeping the application from a physically challenged person for seven years before rejecting it, and directed it to favourably consider the application within three months.

While the essence of compassionate appointment was empathy, there has been only apathy in the instant case, noted a division bench comprising Justice M Sathaynarayanan and Justice R Hemalatha. “BSNL has deprived a truly indigent destitute and impoverished family of a deserving compassionate appointment. Instead of extending a helping hand at the time of distress, BSNL authorities have remained mute for years, only to turn the tables against the petitioner.”

Instead of applying the principle of fairness and equity, a routine, mechanical assessment was done to ease the petitioner out of the process of compassionate appointment, the bench said. “Callous attitude and lack of empathy have caused this denial of an appointment on compassionate grounds. Death of a sole breadwinner will definitely cause huge imbalance in any family, especially when the family is in the low-income group. Added to the loss is the prevailing situation when the other family members are not so educated or well informed,” it noted.

After the death of K Gajendran, a telegraph man in December, 2003, a representation was submitted in 2004 seeking a compassionate appointment for his son G Vijaya Prasanna. With no reply coming forth, the petitioner’s mother directly approached BSNL. But the petitioner was merely appointed as office assistant as a contract labour since 2004.

CHENNAI: A genuine assessment of the state of affairs of the administration at a given point of time cannot amount to defamation, Madras High Court has held, dismissing a defamation plea moved by the State against an online news agency for publishing an article on the conduct of the then Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa in the discharge of her public functions citing her ill health.

Justice PN Prakash, on allowing a plea moved by 7JINƉ HTR and on quashing the prosecution case on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Chennai, said: “The press has a duty to keep the public informed about the happenings in the administration of the State. If this freedom is stifled, rumours and gossip will masquerade as truth.” Also pointing out that right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is sacrosanct, the judge said: “This court does not find the impugned article to be defamatory of then CM Jayalalithaa in respect of her conduct in the discharge of public functions warranting the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence under Section 499 r/w 500 IPC.”

The government, in its complaint, alleged that the petitioners published an article on July 10, 2015, on their website titled ‘Chennai media knew Jaya’s health was not fine but kept mum’ which defamed the then Chief Minister.

However, Justice Prakash, on noting that except making general denial, there is no specific repudiation of these facts, because, none can hide a pumpkin in a morsel of food, said: “The whole world saw the swearing-in ceremony of the ministers on May 23 and the ceremony lasted for not more than 30 minutes.”

“The fact that the CM was not well, was so obvious when 28 ministers took oath in two batches at a stretch, which was unprecedented,” he added.

He also held that the article does not refer to any particular ailment of the Chief Minister or make any disparaging remark about her health. The article states that the CM did not even attend the Iftar party in the first week of July and she issued a written statement saying that she was unwell.