Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 471 (RAJ)

Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-14

RAJENDRA PRASAD VYAS

body2005
Judgment Rajendra Prasad Vyas, J.-The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner regarding appointment in the Government service on compassionate ground. 2. Brief facts of the instant petition are that petitioners father Shri Puran Chand was working in the Government service and he died on 10.05.2000. The petitioner was dependant on his father, so he applied for Government service under the provisions of the Compassionate Grounds Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1996) and moved an application on 24.07.2000 before the respondent No. 1 i.e. State of Rajasthan through the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner. 3. The application of the petitioner was taken into consideration by respondent No. 1. After giving consideration, to the application, Respondent No. 1 issued appointment order on 212.2000 (Annexure-1) and appointed the petitioner in Government service. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that after completion of all the formalities for appointment, the Authorities has issued the appointment order. 5. Before issuance of the appointment order, a criminal case was lodged on 12.2000 against the petitioner under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and the trial was initiated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track, Bhilwara. 6. Further contention of the petitioners Counsel is that said trial was concluded on 08.07.2002 and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges levelled against him vide Judgment and order dated 08.07. 2002 (Annexure -2). 7. Meanwhile, the appointment order dated 212.2000 was issued in favour of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner, time and again, prayed to the respondents that he may be permitted to join his service in pursuance to the appointment order dated 212.2000. The respondent replied that unless and until trial against him is completed, his case will not be taken into consideration. 9. It may be mentioned that so many efforts were made by the petitioner, but no specific order was passed by the respondent and he was not permitted to join the duty in pursuance to the order dated 212.2000, which was passed on compassionate ground after death of the petitioners father. 10. 9. It may be mentioned that so many efforts were made by the petitioner, but no specific order was passed by the respondent and he was not permitted to join the duty in pursuance to the order dated 212.2000, which was passed on compassionate ground after death of the petitioners father. 10. The petitioner, being aggrieved by inaction of the respondent-Authority, by not taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case regarding his acquittal of the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC by the competent Court of jurisdiction, served a notice for demand of justice dated 07.01.2003 (Annexure -3), narrating all the facts regards the criminal case as well as his acquittal in the aforesaid criminal case on the respondent-Authority. 11. Despite the notice for demand of justice, the case of the petitioner of appointment was not taken into consideration by the respondent in pursuance to the order dated 212.2000 (Annexure-1). Not only that, despite petitioners best efforts, he was not permitted to join the service in pursuance to the appointment order dated 212.2000. However, he has mentioned all the relevant facts regarding criminal trial as well as acquittal from the charge of criminal offence and there is no concealment on his part while submitting his details at the relevant time as demanded by the department for the appointment be made on compassionate ground. 12. It may be mentioned that there was no criminal case against him at the relevant time when he applied for appointment on compassionate ground, but just before passing the order of appointment, he was implicated in criminal case and later on, he was subjected to Criminal trial and ultimately, he was acquitted by Judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Bhilwara dated 08.07.2002. (Annexure 2) 13. This fact was apprised to the respondent-authority through legal notice and he made several efforts, but no attention was paid by the authority concerned. Hence, this writ petition. 14. Be that as it may, learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, made a request to the Court, if the petitioner makes a detailed representation to the concerned-authority, then the concerned authority may be directed to take into consideration his representation and decide the same in pursuance to the appointment order dated 212.2000 (Annexure-1 ). This fact is not controverted by Mr. This fact is not controverted by Mr. Ramesh Dave, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan-Respondents. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it just and proper to direct the concerned Competent Authority to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules, 1996 and petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the respondent-authority within 15 days from today. 10.16. The concerned Competent Authority is directed that if such representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be decided by the concerned Competent Authority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of his order, strictly in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner shall be decided by the concerned Competent Authority by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Appointment in the Government Service on Compassionate Ground Rules, 1996. 17. With the aforesaid directions, the instant petition is disposed of . No order as to costs.