Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 348 (JHR)

Bablu Murmu v. State of Jharkhand

2017-02-17

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Rohit Sinha and Ms. Neha Sinha. State is represented by Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate. 2. Petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition with a prayer for quashing the decision taken by the District Establishment Committee dated 13.09.2011 by which his claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that he is not possessing 10th pass certificate in pursuance of the letter no. 1859 dated 02.09.2011, issued by the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction for his appointment on compassionate ground. 3. FACTUAL MATRIX The father of the petitioner namely Late Nandlal Murmu was a regular employee under the District Soil Conservation Officer as Zanzeer Bahak who died in harness on 21.04.2007. After his death, the petitioner applied for his appointment on class-IV posts on compassionate ground pursuant to the circular/scheme of the Government giving therein his educational qualification as class8th pass along with caste certificate showing him to be member of Scheduled Tribes. His case was duly recommended by the District Soil Conservation Officer vide letter no. 642, dated 08.10.2010 for consideration of his case for appointment on class-IV post. The Director, Soil Conservation, after proper scrutiny, recommended case of the petitioner for his appointment vide his letter no. 124, dated 07.02.2011 and forwarded the same before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. Thereafter, meeting of the Establishment Committee was held on 09.02.2011 but case of the petitioner was not placed in the said meeting as the same relates to appointment on compassionate ground. 4. It is case of the petitioner that after lapse of seven months from 19.02.2011 i.e. on 13.09.2011, meeting of the District Establishment Committee was again convened and on that date the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that pursuant to the letter no. 1859, dated 02.09.2011, issued by the Finance Department, the educational qualification for appointment on Class-IV post has now become Class10th pass and as such, the petitioner being Class8th pass, could not be appointed on compassionate ground. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred instant writ petition. 5. Mr. 1859, dated 02.09.2011, issued by the Finance Department, the educational qualification for appointment on Class-IV post has now become Class10th pass and as such, the petitioner being Class8th pass, could not be appointed on compassionate ground. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred instant writ petition. 5. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents authorities have illegally and arbitrarily rejected case of the petitioner for appointment on class-IV post and it was due to latches and fault on part of the respondents that his case was not placed before the District Establishment Committee on time i.e. on 19.02.2011 though it had reached the District Establishment Committee with recommendations on 07.02.2011 itself and as such, the non-consideration of case of the petitioner amounts to hostile discrimination. Learned counsel further argued that letter dated 02.09.2011 issued by the Finance Department has wrongly been taken into consideration by the District Establishment Committee while rejecting claim of the petitioner as the said letter issued by the Finance Department relates to fixation of pay scale in different pay band and it does not speak with respect to prescribed qualification for being appointed in different category and as such, the grounds taken by the respondents for rejection of case on the basis of said letter dated 02.09.2011 is absolutely baseless and as such, the respondents have committed gross illegality by relying on the aforesaid letter. Learned counsel has further relied on the decision rendered in the case of Abhishekh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (2006) 12 SCC 44 . 6. On the other hand respondents have filed counter affidavit. Mr. Abhijit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer and further tried to justify the impugned order stating therein that the respondents have taken due consideration and as because the petitioner is not fulfilling the required qualification in view of the Circular of the Finance Department issued vide letter no. 1859, dated 02.09.2011, his case has not been considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. Having gone through records of the case and arguments placed by respective counsels for the parties, I am of the considered view that case of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected as it amounts to hostile discrimination. 1859, dated 02.09.2011, his case has not been considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. Having gone through records of the case and arguments placed by respective counsels for the parties, I am of the considered view that case of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected as it amounts to hostile discrimination. On the date when the meeting of the District Establishment Committee under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner was held, the case of the petitioner was very much there and was also recommended by the Director, Soil Conservation. The fault lies on the part of the respondents who did not place the case of the petitioner in the said meeting and as such decision in his case could not be taken on the said date resulting the present scenario which amounts to hostile discrimination as similar persons were given appointment in Class-IV posts who were having same and similar qualification and were not Class10th pass. In this regard, it is relevant to quote here the Judgment rendered in the case of Canara Bank and another Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar and others reported in 2015(3) JLJR 21 (SC). “Para 9 Claim of compassionate appointment under scheme of particular year cannot be decided in the light of subsequent scheme that came into force much after the claim. Request of compassionate appointment is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme and no discretion is left with the authorities to make compassionate appointment de horse the scheme.” 8. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, settled principles, rules and guidelines and the decision rendered in this regard, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has a valid ground for appointment on class-IV posts and as such, the impugned decision taken by the District Establishment Committee dated 13.09.2011, is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner afresh in light of the observations made hereinabove. It is made clear that such decision must be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. This writ petition is accordingly allowed with aforesaid observations and directions.