Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1481 (JHR)

Niranjan Bihari Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2017-08-21

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer to consider the appointment of petitioner on Class III post instead of Class IV post, as per his eligibility and Government policy for compassionate appointment, as has been done in the case of several other similarly situated persons. Factual Matrix: 2. From the factual exposition as has been drawn from the writ application is that the father of the petitioner, late Raghunath Ram worked as peon in the Office of the Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Daltonganj-cum-Garhwa-cum–Latehar. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 02.10.1992. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in the place of his deceased father on 26.04.1993 on a class IV post, albeit the fact that he was a matriculate with more than 45% marks and as such he was eligible for appointment on a Class III post as per provisions in circulars issued by the State Government. He joined the post due to abject poverty, despite being eligible for a Class III post. The petitioner represented before the respondent-authorities for reconsidering his case for appointment on a Class III post, in accordance with his qualification, but the respondents rejected his plea, vide memo no. 314, dated 10.03.2002, on the ground that petitioner cannot be reappointed in a Class III post after his earlier appointment on a Class IV post by way of compassionate ground. It has been further stated that aggrieved by the said rejection of his representation, the petitioner preferred writ application before this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) no. 5487/2002 praying therein to quash memo no. 314 dated 10.03.2002 and further for a direction for appointment of petitioner in Class III post from Class IV post after considering his qualification on ground of parity but Hon'ble court vide order dated 07.08.2003 dismissed the writ application on the ground that once compassionate appointment is given and accepted the right to such appointment is exhausted and consideration for higher post is not warranted in law. It has been further stated that despite the order of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 5487/2002 several other similarly situated persons have been considered for appointment and appointed on Class III post. It has been further stated that despite the order of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 5487/2002 several other similarly situated persons have been considered for appointment and appointed on Class III post. Though they were earlier appointed on Class IV post, those appointments have been brought on record by way of Annexure3 series as the case of the petitioner was not considered and other similarly situated persons were considered for appointment. The petitioner has approached this court for appointment on Class III post on ground of parity. 3. Mr. Pandey Ashok Nath Roy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by M/s Pragati Prasad strenuously urges that there cannot be a discrimination made by the State Government. Once they have appointed the similarly situated persons they are bound to appoint the petitioner, as the case of the other similarly situated persons are similar to that of petitioner. Petitioner in view of his financial adversity accepted the appointment letter for Class IV post though with an objection and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner has accepted the appointment on Class IV post without any objection. In the case of other similarly situated persons they have also accepted the appointment on Class IV post and there cases were reconsidered. In view of that the case of the petitioner should also be reconsidered for appointment on Class III post. 4. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Amit Kumar learned J.C. to G.P .II vehemently opposes the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Further J.C. to G.P. II draws the attention of the court towards paragraph 6 and 7 of the counter-affidavit. Further he argues that petitioner has availed the appointment on compassionate ground in the year 1993 which is 17 years back and he has moved before the Hon'ble High Court in the year 2010. Hence the claim is time barred by limitation and being time barred should not be considered. The learned counsel further argues that as per prescribed rules benefits of compassionate appointment is for only one time which has been availed by the petitioner, in the year 1993. As such the petitioner cannot claim the appointment on compassionate ground again. Hence the claim is time barred by limitation and being time barred should not be considered. The learned counsel further argues that as per prescribed rules benefits of compassionate appointment is for only one time which has been availed by the petitioner, in the year 1993. As such the petitioner cannot claim the appointment on compassionate ground again. The learned counsel submits that the averments in the writ petition regarding protest has been completely denied by the respondents and averments to such extent has also been made in the counter-affidavit. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties this court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner is not entitled for second compassionate appointment as per the settled principles of law. The contention of the learned senior counsel that similarly situated persons have been considered for appointment in view of the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C no. 1287 of 1998 has already been considered by this Hon'ble court in W.P.(S) No. 5487/02 disposed of on 07.08.2003. The Hon'ble court had clearly distinguished the case as made out in C.W.J.C. No. 1287 of 1998 and the case of the petitioner. It was the view of the court that in the earlier case the petitioner did not join Class IV post and made representation for his consideration in the Class III post but in the present case the petitioner has already accepted the appointment on Class IV post and he is working continuously for seven years and after that he has approached this court for appointment on Class III post. That earlier also his case was considered and dismissed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 5487 of 2002 disposed of on 27.08.2003. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajasthan SRTC versus Revat Singh reported in (2015) 11 Supreme Court Cases 802 : (2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) clearly held that: “No second compassionate appointment can be given. In the case of I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, this court has held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to a post for which the candidate is ineligible. In the case of I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, this court has held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to a post for which the candidate is ineligible. It is further held in said case that even though higher post was applied for on compassionate ground, when a lower post offered considering qualification and eligibility as per rules was accepted by the candidate, he cannot claim higher post.” The same ratio was adopted and reiterated in the case of SAIL v. Madhusudan Das. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, observations and judicial pronouncements I am of the considered view that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner is not entitled for further appointment on compassionate ground on Class III post. Resultantly the writ petition merits dismissal.