Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 531 (JHR)

Maya Devi v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-07-21

N.N.TIWARI

body2005
ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner, who is the widow of deceased Forest Guard-Mahesh Chandra Mahto, prays for a direction to the respondents to appoint her on Class IV post on compassionate ground as her husband died in harness on 28.3.1998. 2. According to the petitioner, after the death of her husband, she filed application for appointment on compassionate ground with all requisite documents such as Death Certificate, Succession Certificate, Photographs etc. as far back as on 11.6.1998. After a long pendency of the application, the petitioner had preferred a writ application before the Patna High Court, as then was, being C.W.J.C. No. 3665 of 1999(R). By order dated 20.7.2000 passed therein the respondents were directed to consider the petitioners prayer for appointment on compassionate ground. The grievance of the petitioner is that in-spite of the submission of the application with all requisite documents and inspite of the said order passed in the writ application years ago, the respondents have not passed any order till date. 3.2 The respondents contested by filing counter-affidavit, and stating, inter alia, that the respondents in compliance of the aforesaid Courts order had taken steps - and the petitioners petition was sent to the Conservator of Forest, Southern Circle, by office order No. 303, dated 7.3.2000 with a copy of the same to the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest Jamshedpur and. The Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa. On receipt of the said letter, the Deputy Commissioner Chaibasa and the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest asked for some more documents which were furnished. On receipt of the documents, the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Jamshedpur observed that the educational qualification of the petitioner is only Standard V pass which does not meet the requisite qualification of minimum VIII pass and the proposal was asked for by him for relaxation of educational qualification. The Divisional Forest Officer, Kolhan Area then sent a proposal for relaxation of the petitioners educational qualification by his office letter No. 2119, dated 22.11.2003. They have stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa who is the appointing authority, by his memo No. 684(B) Estt. dated 27.6.2003 categorically mentioned that the minimum educational qualification for employment on compassionate ground in IV Grade, should be minimum VIII standard pass and on the basis of the said letter, several applications for appointment on compassionate ground were rejected. They have stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa who is the appointing authority, by his memo No. 684(B) Estt. dated 27.6.2003 categorically mentioned that the minimum educational qualification for employment on compassionate ground in IV Grade, should be minimum VIII standard pass and on the basis of the said letter, several applications for appointment on compassionate ground were rejected. It has been stated that since the petitioner has no minimum educational qualification of VIII standard pass, she is not qualified for the appointment. The respondents have denied the allegation of arbitrariness and mala fide on their part in not appointing the petitioner. 4. The petitioner, in his reply to the counter-affidavit, contended that there is no mandatory requirement of the educational qualification for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has referred to the provisions of the policy decision issued by the Government by memo No. 11946, dated 30th November, 1984. It has been provided therein that in the cases of proposal of appointment of a woman on Class IV post on compassionate ground, the educational qualification can be relaxed on the condition that she would learn reading and writing within a period of two years from the date of her appointment. The petitioner has annexed the said circular as Annexure-12 with her reply. It has been stated that on that basis several persons have been appointed by relaxing the requirement of educational qualification. The petitioner has also annexed an order of appointment of one Smt. Sumitra Tiu who was an illiterate lady and who was appointed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education by his Memo No. 1611, dated 12.12.2002. It has been stated that in view of the provisions in the circular, the proposal was also asked for relaxing the educational qualification of the petitioner, but no order was passed. The petitioner has also brought on record a copy of the order of the Court passed in W.P. (S) No. 6099 of 2003 enclosed as Annexure-10 wherein it has been held that qualification is totally, immaterial for the purpose of giving compassionate appointment on the post of Sweeper. 5. From the perusal of the documents placed on record, it is clear that in the matter of compassionate appointment in case of a woman, requirement of minimum educational qualification is not mandatory and the same can be relaxed. 5. From the perusal of the documents placed on record, it is clear that in the matter of compassionate appointment in case of a woman, requirement of minimum educational qualification is not mandatory and the same can be relaxed. In fact, similar relaxation has been given in case of other persons, vide instances cited by the petitioner and the same has not been denied by the respondents. According to the respondents, petitioner fulfils other requirements except that of the requirement of minimum educational qualification which can be relaxed. I find no reason why the petitioner should not be given the equal treatment as has been given in the case of some other similarly situated persons by relaxing the condition of requirement of minimum educational qualification. As is evident from the records, the petitioner is a member of the backward class and her husband was Forest Guard. Keeping in view her background, the petitioner deserved a liberal and sympathetic treatment including the relaxation of the requirement of minimum educational qualification, but on the contrary the respondents have shown apathetic attitude and have unnecessarily kept pending consideration of her prayer for compassionate appointment for several years without any just reason, which amounts to frustrating the very object of the provisions for compassionate appointment. The proposal for relaxation in the educational qualification was sent by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kolhan as far back as on 22.11.2003 and that too after unreasonable delay of several years from the date of filing application by the petitioner. The same demonstrates the deplorable situation of the functioning of the concerned public officers in a matter like compassionate appointment. 6. In view of the inordinate delay on the part of the respondents, instead of remitting the matter back to the concerned respondents for passing an order for relaxation, the Court directs the respondents to pass appropriate order on the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order/without waiting for any further order on the relaxation of the educational qualification treating the long silence on the proposal of relaxation by the competent authority as deemed relaxation as no contrary order has been passed till date. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed, but without any order as to costs.