The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday (27 July 2026) struck down a Government Order issued by the Tamil Nadu government granting compassionate appointments to the families of those who lost their lives in the Karur stampede tragedy in September last year, holding that the decision violated the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity in public employment, as reported in LiveLaw.
A Division Bench comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Sakthivel held that the appointments violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, observing that there were many individuals already waiting for compassionate appointments across government departments and that it was inappropriate to overlook their claims in order to extend employment to the families affected by the Karur incident.
The Bench observed, “This is all the more relevant to not just everyone seeking employment but also those standing in the waiting list and who have lost their family in harness. When there is a waiting list, it is not appropriate to overlook their needs and extend what is termed as succor to family members of the Karur incident…We hold that these appointments are in direct violation of the guarantee to a citizen of this country under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”
The court further noted that although the State had justified the appointments by invoking its executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution, those powers must still operate within constitutional limits. It remarked, “Exercise of executive power must be within the constitutional limits. If executive action were to be left unfettered and given free hand, chaos will reign.”
The Bench also cautioned that permitting compassionate appointments in the present case would create a precedent leading to similar demands in numerous other tragedies. It cited examples such as firework accidents and motor accidents, where loss of life may have resulted from state inaction, yet the victims’ families received only ex gratia compensation and not government employment. The court observed that if compassionate appointments were allowed in the Karur case, the State would be compelled to extend similar benefits in those cases as well.
Questioning the government’s approach, the court suggested that instead of offering public employment, the State could have provided skill development and entrepreneurship training to eligible family members.
“We wonder why the govt could not have extended training in skills and entrepreneurship for deserving members of families. The govt wiuld be creating leaders, entrepreneurs, self-sufficient individuals in each family who can later provide employment to others. The government can bear the expense of such technical courses,” the court said.
Emphasising the value of public service, the Bench added, “Public employment is not to be thrown away by the State. It has to be earned. Its value has to be realised. Its importance is to be cherished. There are many who wait seeking employment.”
Although the court acknowledged that it had passed the order without hearing those who had already received appointments, it observed that in its earlier interim order it had made it clear that the appointments would remain subject to judicial review.
Earlier, on July 10, the Bench had permitted the Tamil Nadu government, led by Chief Minister Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), to issue temporary government appointments to the families of those who died in the Karur stampede. However, it had made clear that the appointments would remain temporary and subject to the outcome of judicial review. The court had also impleaded the Member Secretary of the Public Service Commission and sought a report on the guidelines governing compassionate appointments and whether those guidelines had been followed in the present case. It had further indicated its intention to dispose of the main matter before the prospective employees received their first salary.
The observations came while hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Madurai-based lawyer Theeran Thirumurugan, who challenged the decision of the newly elected TVK government to provide government jobs to the families of the 41 people who died in the Karur stampede.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners argued that the challenge was directed at the legality of the State’s action in classifying the appointments as a rehabilitative measure. They submitted that Tamil Nadu already had an existing Government Order governing compassionate appointments, which ought to have been followed, and contended that any such appointment must satisfy constitutional requirements.
They further argued that the State had relied on examples such as the Lilavati murder and the Sterlite police firing, where appointments were made under specific legal provisions applicable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but had failed to explain how the Karur stampede fell within the same category.
The petitioners submitted, “There are a number of aspirants in Tamil Nadu thinking they’ll get an opportunity. Here it’s given to someone else for welfare scheme. But welfare scheme should follow Constitutional mandate. Have to see if the government is providing employment as per the existing scheme or creating a new scheme.”
They also argued that in previous incidents involving state responsibility, only ex gratia compensation had been provided, whereas no comparable circumstances existed in the Karur case. According to the petitioners, the tragedy did not fall within the established framework for compassionate appointments because it was not a case involving natural causes but one allegedly arising from negligence by the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department.
State Government’s Defence
Appearing for the State, Advocate General Vijay Narayan opposed the petitions and argued that the petitioners appeared to be advancing the interests of government job aspirants rather than raising a genuine public interest issue. He questioned the maintainability of the proceedings, stating, “There seems to be some confusion as to whether this is a PIL or is it for a substantive prayer for appointments…In another case which an advocate has filed that will be treated as PIL.”
The Advocate General maintained that the appointments were justified because the case involved exceptional circumstances requiring special relief.
“It is really unfortunate that my learned friends do not have enough humanity in public interest…rather their clients to not have enough humanity to extend a helping hand to the families of 41 persons who died for no fault of theirs out of an accident…There cannot be rules in situation like this because these are all totally unanticipated situations which occured due to combination of events, certain they deserve some succor. Apart from money a job will sustain the family in the long run. In these circumstances a GO was passed.”
He submitted that the appointments were made only at the lowest levels of government service to provide immediate relief to bereaved families who had lost their breadwinners. He also rejected allegations of political opportunism, arguing that the decision was a conscious policy measure taken under Article 162 of the Constitution and that, in service matters, only a rival claimant to the post could ordinarily challenge such appointments.
The Advocate General further argued that the victims formed a distinct class because they had attended a public meeting as unsuspecting participants and that the State could not remain a bystander to their suffering. He contended that monetary compensation alone could not adequately address the loss suffered by the families.
“This being challenged is a matter of regret. They stand on a completely distinct and defined class. It is affirmative action to make people equal. One class of people who are far below others, to make them equal.”
Background of the Case
The petitioner had sought directions restraining the Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary, Secretary (Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department), Secretary (Home Department), Secretary (Revenue and Disaster Management Department), and the Karur District Collector from issuing or implementing any government appointment orders arising from the Karur stampede until proceedings relating to the tragedy attained finality before the Supreme Court.
The petitioner argued that there was no uniform policy governing permanent government employment in cases of public tragedy and that granting such appointments in one incident would raise serious constitutional concerns relating to equality and equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 16. It was also submitted that since proceedings connected with the Karur tragedy were pending before the Supreme Court, granting irreversible administrative benefits before the matter attained finality could result in avoidable legal and administrative consequences.
During the earlier hearing on July 10, the State had argued that compassionate appointments in cases of tragedy were not unprecedented and referred to appointments granted after the Thoothukudi police firing. The Bench had orally observed that the two situations were distinguishable because the Thoothukudi incident involved police excess by the State, whereas no such element existed in the Karur stampede case.
Tamil Nadu To Move Supreme Court
Following the High Court’s verdict, as reported in DT Next, TVK Law Minister CTR Nirmalkumar announced that the State would challenge the order before the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition on Tuesday morning. He said the government would argue that the High Court had delivered its judgment without hearing the beneficiaries who had already received appointment orders.
“The beneficiaries who had already received government appointment orders were not impleaded as respondents in the case. The court delivered its verdict without giving them an opportunity to present their case,” Nirmalkumar said.
The minister said the government would contend that setting aside the appointments without hearing the beneficiaries violated the principles of natural justice and directly affected their employment and livelihood. According to him, the State would seek restoration of the appointment orders while defending its decision to provide temporary government employment as a relief measure for the bereaved families.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
