Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1346 (JHR)

Gregori Surin v. State of Jharkhand

2015-10-28

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER : No one appears for the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the State is present. Petitioner was appointed on Class-IV post on recommendation of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee vide letter dated 07.07.2010, Anneuxre-3 on the death of his father late Masih Surin a teacher in Government Primary School posted at Kodi, Block-Dumari, Disrict-Gumla, who died in harness on 26.08.2006. The Compassionate Appointment Committee meeting was held on 14.07.2009 which also had followed the procedure of subjecting such candidates having qualification of Intermediate and higher to screening test which the petitioner admittedly failed. This is also evident from the impugned reasoned order, Annexure-1 dated 23.02.2012 passed in pursuance of the direction issued in W.P.(S) No. 2469 of 2011 judgment dated 15.07.2011 in the petitioner's previous writ petition. Screening test was held to judge the competency of the candidates seeking compassionate appointment to Class-III post. Petitioner accepted Class-IV appointment as offered thereafter and has approached this Court taking a plea that on account of his higher qualification of graduation and certain other persons having been appointed on Class-III post as named in para-15 of the writ petition, petitioner would also be entitled for appointment/up-gradation to Class-III post. After reasoned order was passed and contempt petition was also dropped, it has been assailed in the present writ petition. 3. From perusal of the reasoned order itself, it is apparent that not only petitioner failed to compete in the screening test held for judging competency and suitability of Class-III post, but even in terms of the relevant provisions of the Government Circular dated 05.10.1991, a candidate, who has been granted compassionate appointment once, cannot be given the benefit twice by offering him appointment or change of cadre. Petitioner's case also is based upon an example of certain other persons named at para-15 of the writ petition, who were appointed on Class-III post. 4. According to the counsel for the respondents, who have also stated at para-14 of the counter affidavit, cases of such other persons were decided in the earlier District Compassionate Committee Meeting. Learned counsel has also referred to the document at Annexure-4 enclosed by the petitioner himself being the minutes of the District Compassionate Committee meeting held on 14.07.2009 where against names of those persons, the remarks shows that their cases were considered earlier in the District Compassionate Appointment Committee meeting held on 26.11.2007 itself. Learned counsel has also referred to the document at Annexure-4 enclosed by the petitioner himself being the minutes of the District Compassionate Committee meeting held on 14.07.2009 where against names of those persons, the remarks shows that their cases were considered earlier in the District Compassionate Appointment Committee meeting held on 26.11.2007 itself. It is, therefore, submitted that petitioner's case is distinguishable on facts than the rest of the persons. It is also submitted that the process of screening test adopted by the respondents is inconsonance with the circular bearing no. 5987 dated 29.07.2002 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, has opposed the prayer of the writ petitioner. 5. The relevant material facts pleaded by the parties having noticed hereinabove, goes to show that due consideration was accorded to the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on a Class-III post but he failed to clear screening test which also contained paper of Hindi Notings and simply essay writing. Petitioner was found to be unsuccessful in the screening test though petitioner claims to be Intermediate pass. In the transaction in which the claim of the petitioner was considered, the aforesaid procedure was adopted in line with the departmental circular dated 29.07.2002. Therefore, if the petitioner's case has been considered for compassionate appointment even in Class-III post and on his failure, offered class-IV post which he accepted, there cannot be a claim for fresh appointment on compassionate ground on Class-III post as sought for by the petitioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and the reasons recorded, petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.