Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 68 (GUJ)

Vikram Bhurabhai Dangar v. State of Gujarat

2011-02-04

ABHILASHA KUMARI

body2011
Judgment Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Rule. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided, today. 2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, with the following prayers : “The Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent authorities and may be pleased to :— “(A) quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 15.1.2009, Annexure-A to this petition, whereby the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is rejected, and (B) further be pleased to direct respondent Board to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, and (C) award the cost of the petition, and (D) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to respondent authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, and/or (E) grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, the father of the petitioner, Shri Bhurabhai Mansurbhai Dangar, who was working as Armed Police Constable in the Police Department, expired in harness on 9.12.2006, leaving behind a widow, two sons and a daughter. The petitioner, being the eldest son in the family, made an application for compassionate appointment to Superintendent of Police, Junagadh (Respondent No. 3), on 8.2.2007, which was forwarded to the Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board for further necessary procedure, as per letter dated 1.2.2008 of the respondents. The petitioner did not hear anything with regard to his above-mentioned application and Respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner on 15.1.2009 that the said application has been rejected by the authorities on the ground that he has not acquired the minimum qualification, that is, Secondary School Certificate Examination (‘SSC’, for short), within the stipulated period of six months from the date of death of his father. The petitioner, thereafter, appeared in the SSC examination in March, 2007, but could not clear one paper, which ultimately was cleared by the petitioner in July, 2007, that is, shortly after the period of six months after the death of his father on 9.12.2006. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. Ms. Harshal Pandya, Learned Advocate for Mr. Paresh Upadhyay, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the rejection of the application of the petitioner on the ground that he has not passed the SSC Examination within six months from the date of death of his father is unjust and arbitrary, as the said period of six months expired on 9.6.2007 whereas the petitioner obtained the necessary qualification in the month of July, 2007 itself. It is further submitted that the embargo of six months contained in Government Resolution dated 10.3.2000 is not realistic, as it is not in the hands of the dependent of the deceased employee, to clear the examination within the stipulated period of six months, as the date of death of the employee cannot be known in advance. 5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court, order dated 15.10.2010, passed in Special Civil Application No. 8553/2010 wherein the Court had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner therein for appointment on compassionate grounds, in similar circumstances. It is stated by the Learned Advocate for the petitioner that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations of the Court made in this judgment. 6. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petitioner did not obtain the requisite qualifications of SSC within a period of six months from the date of death of his father, therefore, his request has been rightly rejected. 7. I have heard the Learned Counsel for respective parties and perused the averments made in the petition and other documents on record. 8. In Special Civil Application No. 8553/2010, decided by order dated 15.10.2010, the petitioner therein had made an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds within the time limit of six months. However, he did not possess the minimum educational qualifications of new SSC on the date of filing his application, therefore, such appointment was denied to him. 8. In Special Civil Application No. 8553/2010, decided by order dated 15.10.2010, the petitioner therein had made an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds within the time limit of six months. However, he did not possess the minimum educational qualifications of new SSC on the date of filing his application, therefore, such appointment was denied to him. In such a situation, the observations made in the said order are reproduced hereinbelow : “3. Any insistence for a particular qualification that too for giving appointment in Class-IV category while considering the case for appointment on compassionate ground is nothing but indirectly frustrating the object of giving appointment on compassionate ground, more so, when the candidate is not possessing qualification of new SSC on the date of his filing the application and the result is declared thereafter. In the present case, the result was declared on 31.5.2007. The action of the authority, rejecting the application on this ground is not only unjust, but arbitrary as it frustrates the entire object of providing the scheme for giving appointment on compassionate ground. 3.1 Taking into consideration the fact that the father of the petitioner was serving as Peon in the office of the Collector, Porbandar, what is claimed by the petitioner is only appointment on compassionate ground and the object of floating the scheme for giving appointment on compassionate ground is to see that the family is not pushed into pitiable condition on sad demise of bread earner. In the present case, the petitioner was not holding the new SSC examination qualification is not something which was within the control of the petitioner and more particularly unfateful event of the death of the petitioner’s father was certainly not within the control of anybody. It cannot be foreseen by the petitioner to expedite the getting of required qualification only because his father is going to expire on a particular day similarly it is not possible for the father of the petitioner to postpone the death until his son gets the qualification of new SSC so as to enable him to get appointment on compassionate ground. 4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the decision of the authority of denying the appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner is unjust, arbitrary and is required to be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. 4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the decision of the authority of denying the appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner is unjust, arbitrary and is required to be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. The authorities are directed to consider and appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.” 9. In the present case, the impugned order dated 15.1.2009 reveals that the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected, as he did not acquire the qualification of SSC within a period of six months from the date of death of his father. In view of the observations made in order dated 15.10.2010 reproduced hereinabove and the statement of the Learned Advocate of the petitioner, the case of the petitioner requires reconsideration at the hands of the respondents. 10. It is stated by Ms. Harshal Pandya, Learned Advocate for Mr. Paresh Upadhyay, Learned Counsel for the petitioner that order dated 15.10.2010 in Special Civil Application No. 8553/2010 has not been challenged by the respondents. Considering the above facts and circumstances and as the petitioner has now passed the requisite examination, the interest of justice would be met, if the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in right perspective, keeping in view the observations made in order dated 15.10.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8553/2010. It is so directed. The decision, after reconsideration, may be conveyed to the petitioner at the earliest. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court, if aggrieved. The petition is disposed of, in the above terms, without entering into the merits of the case. Rule is made absolute to the above extent only. Direct Service is permitted. P P P P P