Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 835 (RAJ)

Rajesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2003-05-28

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2003
Honble GARG, J.–This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents on 17.5.2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to join the duties in pursuance of order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex. 1) passed by Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 3) by which the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on compassionate ground after death of his father. (2). The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: i) That the petitioners father was appointed with the respondents and he died while in service. Thereafter the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment after death of his father. Note: It is strange that date of death of the deceased has not been mentioned in the writ petition. ii) Further case of the petitioner is that through order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex. 1) passed by the respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar), the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on compassionate ground. iii) Further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex.1) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 3), the petitioner was not allowed to join the services on the ground that he did not fulfill the requisite qualification as certificate of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Annex. 2) was not found equivalent to the Secondary Examination of the State of Rajasthan. Thereafter the petitioner approached the respondents. However his grievance had not been redressed. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer. (3). A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and reply of the respondents may be summarized as under: i) That the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. ii) That no doubt order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex.1) was passed by the respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police) whereby the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable for two years on probation, but order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex.1) was cancelled by order dtd. 16.8.88 (Annex.R/1) passed by the respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 3) on the ground that the petitioner was found under-height. iii) That since the order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex.1) was cancelled by order dtd. 16.8.88 (Annex.R/1) passed by the respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 3) on the ground that the petitioner was found under-height. iii) That since the order dtd. 16.8.88 (Annex.R/1) has not been challenged by the petitioner, therefore, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. iv) That after the order dtd. 16.8.88 (Annex.R/1) was passed by the respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar), the petitioner submitted a representation on 7.12.96 for seeking appointment on compassionate ground i.e. after a gap of 8 years. v) That thereafter the petitioner vide letter dtd. 9.1.96 (Annex.R/2) issued by the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 3) was called upon to submit his case yet again for grant of compassionate appointment as per the Rules. vi) A perusal of letter dtd. 9.1.96 (Annex.R/2) reveals that six formalities were to be completed by the petitioner. vii) Thereafter the petitioner submitted his case again and his case was not considered because the petitioner submitted the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Annex.2) which according to the petitioner was equivalent to 10th class, but that certificate was not recognized by the State of Rajasthan and, therefore, the same was not considered for granting appointment to the petitioner on the compassionate ground. viii) That through another letter dtd. 2.1.97, the petitioner was asked to submit his case in detail, but he did not submit his case. ix) That letter dtd. 24.6.2000, 11.7.2000 and 27.2.2002 were sent to the petitioner, but he did not send the relevant papers. Hence, no case is made out and the writ petition be dismissed. (4). Heard and perused the record. (5). In this case, the date of death of father of the petitioner has not been mentioned, but since the petitioner was given appointment through order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex.1) passed by the respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, meaning thereby that father of the petitioner died before 10.8.88. (6). There is also no dispute on the point that in pursuance of order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex.1), the petitioner was not allowed to join the duties and, through order dtd. 16.8.88 (Annex.R/1) issued by the respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar) the order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex.1) was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was under-height. (7). (6). There is also no dispute on the point that in pursuance of order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex.1), the petitioner was not allowed to join the duties and, through order dtd. 16.8.88 (Annex.R/1) issued by the respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar) the order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex.1) was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was under-height. (7). There is also no dispute on the point that the petitioner has suppressed the order dtd. 16.8.88 (Annex.R/1) passed by respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar) from this Court and it cannot be presumed that this order was not communicated to the petitioner. (8). From the reply of the respondents it further appears that after passing of cancellation order dtd. 16.8.88 (Annex.R/1), after gap of 8 years, the petitioner further pursued his matter through letter dtd. 7.12.96. Whatsoever may be the reason, the petitioner was not given compassionate appointment though the case of the respondents is that many a times, letters were sent to him to complete the formalities, but the petitioner did not do so. (9). Now the question which arises for consideration is in the facts and circumstances of the case, just mentioned above, the petitioner is entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not in respect of compassionate appointment. (10). Before proceeding further, legal aspect with respect to for what purpose compassionate appointments are made and what is the object behind them may be seen. For that the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Sushma Gosain and Ors. vs. Union of India (1), Smt. Phoolwati vs. Union of India (2), Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (3), Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar (4), State of Bihar vs. Samsuz Zoha (5), Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation vs. Dinesh Kumar (6), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs. A. Radhiki Thirumalal (7), Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Naresh Tanwar (8), Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh (9), Director of Education vs. Pushpendra Kumar (10), Cochin Cock Labour Board vs. Leemamma Samuel (11), UPRTC vs. Pukhraj Singh (12), and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. P. Pochaiah (13), may be referred to. (11). The salient features of the above authorities may be summarised in the following manner: 1) The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread- earner in the family. (11). The salient features of the above authorities may be summarised in the following manner: 1) The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread- earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. 2) The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased. 3) The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. 4) The decision does not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of course. 5) The only ground which can justify compassionate appointment is the penurious condition of the deceaseds family. 6) The consideration for such employment is not a vested right. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crises. 7) A provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provision does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provisions enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds for the dependent of a deceased employee. 8) An employment on compassionate ground should be provided strictly in accordance with the Rules and the Court cannot take a view as to make it violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9) The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. (12). Keeping the above principle in mind, the case of the petitioner is being examined. (13). In the present case, when the petitioner himself remained silent for near about 8 years, the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground became frustrated and apart from this claiming of appointment on compassionate ground is not vested right. (12). Keeping the above principle in mind, the case of the petitioner is being examined. (13). In the present case, when the petitioner himself remained silent for near about 8 years, the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground became frustrated and apart from this claiming of appointment on compassionate ground is not vested right. The object of is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis and in the present case, that crisis, if any would have lapsed now as death of father of the petitioner occurred in the year 1988 and more than 14 years have passed since then. (14). Apart from this the present writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The appointment of the petitioner granted to him on compassionate ground vide order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex.1) was cancelled by respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar) through order dtd. 16.8.88 (Annex.R/1) and thereafter the petitioner submitted representation on 7.12.96 i.e. after a gap of 8 years. Therefore, also the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. (15). A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be refused without hearing on merits if it appears that the petitioner has made deliberate concealment of material facts. In the present case also, after perusal of the reply filed by the respondents, it appears that the petitioner has suppressed some material facts from this Court and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (16). Apart from this, even appointment on compassionate ground has to be made in accordance with Rules. In the present case, from the reply of the respondents, it appears that the petitioner has not fulfilled the requisite formalities and thus from this point of view also if appointment on compassionate ground was refused by the respondents, it cannot be said that the said act on the part of the respondents suffers from arbitrariness and therefore also, the petitioner is not entitled to seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.