Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1235 (JHR)

Sanjay Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-18

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER 1. Head learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on the post of constable on 7.9.2001 after the death of his father in harness as Sub Inspector on 15.10.1999. The petitioner contends that at the relevant point of time, the Superintendent of Police, Ranchi had made recommendation for appointment of the petitioner on Class III post of clerk. However, the respondents chose to appoint him on the post of constable on Class IV post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in such circumstances, the petitioner claims right to be considered for appointment on Class III posts of clerk based upon such recommendation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Suman Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and others (W.P.(S) No. 3632 of 2010 dated 29.7.2011). He has also relied upon a division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, reported in 2012 (2) JCR 30 (Jhr). In the case of Anil Kumar (supra), counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Division Bench found that the recommendations were made for appointment on class III post and other persons were accommodated on the said post while petitioner was not given promotion to class III post. In the instant case the petitioner's recommendation for class III post has not been acted upon by the respondents. 3. It further appears that the mother of the petitioner had approached this Court with a similar relief in W.P.(S) No. 4850 of 2012, which was, however, withdrawn with liberty to the present petitioner to agitate his grievances. Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner's representation for redressal of his aforesaid grievances, vide Annexure-6, has remained unredressed. Therefore, the respondents should be directed to consider his case. 5. The respondent-State has appeared and file their counter affidavit. It is their categorical stand that in view of the resolution no. 13293 dated 5.10.1991 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, once a person has been granted compassionate appointment, the same can not be allowed to be converted to any other cadre. 5. The respondent-State has appeared and file their counter affidavit. It is their categorical stand that in view of the resolution no. 13293 dated 5.10.1991 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, once a person has been granted compassionate appointment, the same can not be allowed to be converted to any other cadre. The said resolution is at Annexure-A. It is further submitted that in the instant case the petitioner was appointed after he accepted the compassionate appointment in the year 2001. Therefore, no further consideration for a fresh compassionate appointment should arise. It is further submitted that the matter of compassionate appointment having once been considered and allowed in order to enable the dependent-petitioner to meet with the sudden financial crisis after the death of the employee, no vested right is there in favour of the petitioner to seek once again appointment on compassionate ground on class III post by seeking change in the cadre in the nature of promotion to the next grade. It is further submitted that present writ petition has been filed after 12 years of his first appointment and as such sudden relief is grossly barred by delay and laches. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. It is apparent that from the facts, which are borne on record that on the death of the petitioner's father as a Sub-Inspector while in service on 15.10.1999, the petitioner accepted appointment on compassionate ground on the post of constable on 7.9.2001. 7. The writ petition has been preferred after 12 years seeking reconsideration for appointment on class III post of clerk on the basis of recommendation made by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ranchi in the year 2000 in favour of the petitioner. The respondents have also denied the statement made by the petitioner that similar such persons have been considered for change of cadre after having been accepted the compassionate appointment at the level of the Director General of Police, Jharkhand. As a matter of fact, the contention made at paragraph 14 of the writ petition that certain persons appointed on compassionate ground, were allowed to change their cadre and shifted to the post of Assistant/Clerk from class IV post, is not substantiated by any concrete example as also would appear from perusal of representation, Annexure-6. As a matter of fact, the contention made at paragraph 14 of the writ petition that certain persons appointed on compassionate ground, were allowed to change their cadre and shifted to the post of Assistant/Clerk from class IV post, is not substantiated by any concrete example as also would appear from perusal of representation, Annexure-6. In the matter of compassionate appointment, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the several judgments and also considered and reiterated in the latest judgment in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi, reported in JT 2012(11) SC 408, the issue now no longer remains Respondent integra that compassionate appointment is a departure to the normal Rule of appointment after consideration of all eligible persons as conceived under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointment on compassionate grounds can only be made in terms of the Scheme in question. In the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Suman Kumar (supra), the said petitioner had not accepted the offer for appointment on class IV post. In such circumstances, the direction was issued by the learned single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the said case. In the judgment rendered in the case of Anil Kumar (supra), relied upon by the petitioner, certain persons in whose favour recommendations were made, were appointed on class III post but the said petitioner was accommodated on class IV post in spite of similar recommendation in his favour. In such circumstances, the division Bench of this Court found the actions of the respondents as arbitrary and denial of equal opportunity as conceived under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the present case, the facts, as have already been discussed hereinabove, the petitioner has failed to make out any violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as no instances of similarly placed candidates have been shown to be accommodated on class III post after having been appointed on class IV post earlier on compassionate ground by the respondent office of Director General of Police, Jharkhand. 9. In that view of the matter, keeping into regard the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and reiterated in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. 9. In that view of the matter, keeping into regard the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and reiterated in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi, reported in JT 2012(11) SC 408 (supra), this Court does not find any cogent reason to interfere with this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.