Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 412 (JHR)

Anil Oraon v. State Of Bihar

2001-07-03

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the amendment petition and for the reason stated therein, same is allowed. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ directing the respondents to appointment the petitioner on compassionate ground in place of his father, late Gyani Oraon, a Bench Clerk of the Civil Court, Ranchi. 3. The petitioners father late Gyani Oraon while working as ex-Bench clerk in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ranchi, died all of a sudden on 27.7.1998 during his service period leaving behind a widow, 4 sons and one unmarried daughter. After the death of Gyani Oraon, the petitioner being the eldest son, applied for his appointment on compassionate ground in Class III post, as he has already completed his graduation in 1997. The appointment committee, headed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. considered the case of the petitioner and took a decision on 11.5.2000 that the petitioner was not fit for appointment in Class III post. The committee, therefore, unanimously decided to inform the petitioner to apply for his appointment in Class IV post. 4. The case of the respondents is that the appointment committee again held its meeting on 25.5.2001 and considered the case of the petitioner for appointment in Class IV post but dropped the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he was found most discourteous and ill mannered. 5. As noticed above, the petitioner being graduate first applied for appointment in Class III post. The committee took a decision on 11.5.2000, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the said annexure that the petitioner was asked to answer the question paper of 100 marks. On evaluation of the answer book, the petitioner secured only 23 marks out of 100 and the committee, therefore, took a decision to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in Class IV post. In the meantime, when the retiral dues and other family pension was not paid to the widow of the deceased, who died in July, 98, she filed CWJC No. 1333/99 (R). The writ application was disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 12.2.2001 with a direction to the respondents to make payment of entire retiral dues within six months from the date of order. The writ application was disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 12.2.2001 with a direction to the respondents to make payment of entire retiral dues within six months from the date of order. It was also ordered that the widow was unnecessarily dragged to this court for payment of retiral dues, she is entitled to interest @ 10% per annum from the date of retirement alongwith cost of Rs. 1000/-, A copy of the order was communicated by the widow to the respondents on 8.3.2001. Subsequently to that, the Committee again held its sitting and took a decision on 25.5.2001 whereby they refused to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground as the petitioner was found discourteous and ill mannered. 6. Mr. Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the action of the respondents is wholly mala fide as they became bias against the petitioner for the reason that the respondents were imposed cost by this court in the writ petition filed by the mother of the petitioner. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel. 7. As noticed above, on 11.5.2000 the petitioner was fit for appointment in Class IV post and accordingly a letter was issued by the Registrar on 3.6.2000 asking him to apply for appointment in Class IV post. Before a decision could be taken by the committee, the order of the High Court was served on the respondents on 8.3.2001. Hence, there is every reason that because of the mother of the petitioner got the order from this Court for payment of cost and interest, the respondents have refused to give compassionate appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he was discourteous. At no point of time since the date of the application was filed or much less till 11.5.2000, when the first decision was taken by the committee, the petitioner was ever found discourteous or ill mannered. I am, therefore, of the view that the decision taken by the committee not giving in employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground is wholly unjustified. 8. For the reason aforesaid, this writ application is allowed, the impugned decision of the committee dated 25.5.2001 as contained in Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit is quashed. I am, therefore, of the view that the decision taken by the committee not giving in employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground is wholly unjustified. 8. For the reason aforesaid, this writ application is allowed, the impugned decision of the committee dated 25.5.2001 as contained in Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit is quashed. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground and issue necessary appointment letter within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Writ application allowed.