Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1322 (JHR)

Nawal Kishore Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2013-12-03

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
JUDGMENT By Court.–Challenging order dated 21.2.2012, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the father of the petitioner died in harness on 6.9.2004. After the death of his father, the petitioner made application for appointment on compassionate ground in the year, 2004 and the District Compassionate Appointment Committee recommended the case of the petitioner on 26.6.2007. The petitioner joined the post on 28.2.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation on 24.2.2010 raising the claim that he should have been appointed on Class-III post. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2690 of 2011 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 6.9.2011. Pursuant to order passed by this Court on 6.9.2011, the claim of the petitioner has been decided by the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the respondents have admitted that the petitioner has requisite qualification for appointment on a Class-III post, however, he has not been granted appointment on a Class-III post which is not justified. He has further submitted that the State Government has issued a Circular which permits appointment on Class-III and Class-IV post on compassionate grounds and therefore, the respondents should have appointed the petitioner on a Class-III post. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order contending that since the petitioner has accepted offer of appointment and joined the Class-IV post, it was not open to the petitioner to seek further appointment or to agitate his claim for appointment on a higher post. 6. A perusal of the documents on record would indicate that, the petitioner joined the post on 28.2.2008 however, he failed to raise any objection with respect to his appointment on Class-IV post. For the first time by representation dated 24.2.2010 the petitioner raised his grievance with respect to his appointment on a Class-IV post. The petitioner approached this Court in the year, 2011. The name of the petitioner was recommended by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee on 26.6.2007 itself and in the mean-time, a Circular has been issued by the Government of Jharkhand on 16.1.2008 prohibiting any claim for appointment on a higher post by the persons appointed on compassionate ground. 7. The petitioner approached this Court in the year, 2011. The name of the petitioner was recommended by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee on 26.6.2007 itself and in the mean-time, a Circular has been issued by the Government of Jharkhand on 16.1.2008 prohibiting any claim for appointment on a higher post by the persons appointed on compassionate ground. 7. In State Bank of India and Another v. Raj Kumar, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 , the Hon'ble Supreme 'Court has held as under : "8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for com passionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever out side such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after sit is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant." 8. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition lacks merit arid accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.