Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 229 (RAJ)

Shyoram Singh v. State

2011-02-01

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Shyoram Singh with the prayer that the respondent-State be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III as per the Circular dated 29.10.1976 and the letter issued by His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan dated 26.8.2005. 2. It is contended that petitioner's father late Shri Bhagwan Singh was enrolled as Naik in Indian Army on 20.7.1965 and while fighting for the defence of nation on 3.11.1971 in the Indo Pak War, he sacrificed his life. He was awarded G.S. Medal 1947 and Sanya Seva Medal Service Career. Petitioner's mother was sent a hand written condolence letter by the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi and a certificate was also sent to her recognising services of petitioner's father by the then Chief of the Army Staff Shri Ved Malik, both of which are on record. 3. Petitioner has passed in secondary school examination in 1990 and senior secondary in 1992. Thereafter he passed the BSTC course in 1996. After completing this course, he applied for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar. He was entitled to be given preferential treatment as per the Government circular dated 29.10.1976 issued by Labour and Employment Department. Petitioner appeared in RPSC examination for selection on the post of Teacher Gr.III for the vacancies of the year 2004-05. He qualified that examination with merit no.30316. When the petitioner was not granted appointment as per the Government Circular dated 29.10.1976, his mother made a representation to Her Excellency the Governor. Her Excellency, the Governor by order dated 26.8.2005 directed the Government to grant appointment to the petitioner and inform compliance of that direction. But so far, no such appointment has been granted. Learned counsel cited the judgement of this Court in Naresh Kumar Yadav v. State & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.607/07 decided on 18.8.2008 , wherein identical writ petition was allowed and the petitioner was directed to grant appointment in terms of the aforesaid Government Circular dated 29.10.1976. 4. Despite number of opportunities given to the respondents so far, no reply to the writ petition has been filed and Ms. Priyanka Pareek, learned Additional Government Counsel again requests for time expressing her inability to do anything. 4. Despite number of opportunities given to the respondents so far, no reply to the writ petition has been filed and Ms. Priyanka Pareek, learned Additional Government Counsel again requests for time expressing her inability to do anything. However on merits, she submitted that a mandamus cannot be issued for grant of appointment on compassionate ground and petitioner should approach the authorities in the light of the order of the Governor dated 26.8.2005. His grievance may be redressed by the authorities themselves. 5. In the facts of the case, when already more than a period of five years have gone by since the Governor of State, who is head of the State, directed the Government to provide appointment to the petitioner, I see no point in keeping this petition pending and further deferring the matter requiring the petitioner to again approach the respondents. The lackadaisical and callous manner in which the respondents have behaved leaves much to be desired. It is a sad commentary on the working of the Government that even the order passed by the Governor of the State remains uncomplied and the aggrieved person has to approach this Court. 6. Petitioner has placed on record the Government Circular dated 29.10.1976 which indicates that this was issued pursuant to the policy decision of the Government to provide succor to the family of martyrs and those who are permanently incapacitated while in action in defence of the nation. It provided that the Government shall give priority to the defendants, upto two in number, for appointment in Class-III and Class-IV services provided that they fulfill requisite edibility criteria. What was required to be examined by the respondents was whether case of the petitioner fell in either of the two categories or whether he was member of the family of a defence personnel, who sacrificed his life while defending the nation. The respondents have not acted despite specific order to that effect passed by the then Governor of the State. In Naresh Kumar Yadav, supra a somewhat identical issue was raised with the only difference that in that case, father of the petitioner was rendered disabled while fighting for the nation in the Indo Pak war. His disability was assessed for life and attributable to military service in operational area. In Naresh Kumar Yadav, supra a somewhat identical issue was raised with the only difference that in that case, father of the petitioner was rendered disabled while fighting for the nation in the Indo Pak war. His disability was assessed for life and attributable to military service in operational area. The writ petition was allowed with direction to the respondents to grant him appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III, in case he is found eligible on the date last candidate in the selection of the year 1999 was appointed with notional benefits. 7. In the present case however there is an additional factor that the representation of the petitioner's mother was already accepted by the Governor with direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner. The Government thereafter did not make compliance of the order issued by the Governor. 8. In the circumstances, therefore the petitioner is held entitled not only to a mandamus for grant of appointment to him in terms of the aforesaid Government policy but also for the consequential benefits at least from the date the order was passed by the Governor of the State and conveyed to the Government by Principal Secretary to the Governor of State. 9. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Gr.III if he is found eligible within a period of three months and from the date the last candidate selected in the recruitment process of the year 2004-05 and place his seniority immediately below him with all the consequential benefits. 10. Compliance of the judgement shall be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents.Writ Petition Allowed With Direction to Comply Within Three Months. *******