Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 472 (JHR)

Kamlesh Kumar Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand

2020-03-17

S.N.PATHAK

body2020
ORDER : S.N. Pathak, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for appointment to Class-III post on compassionate ground. 3. As per factual matrix, petitioner's father died in harness on 13.06.2010, while posted as Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Gauripur Poreyahat, Godda. After death of his father, petitioner applied for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. In support of his claim, petitioner also submitted educational qualification certificates as well as other relevant documents required for appointment to the said post. As the application of the petitioner was within time, the same was considered by the District Establishment Committee and the said Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment to Class-IV post, as he was found fit for the same. The petitioner duly accepted the said recommendation and joined the post on 28.08.2010. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though he accepted the joining on Class-IV post, his right for appointment on Class-III has not evaporated. As the petitioner was fulfilling the requisite qualification, he ought to have been considered for appointment to Class-III post and hence, this writ petition has been filed for reconsideration of his appointment on the said post. 4. Mr. Jay Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the petitioner fulfills the requisite qualification for appointment as an Assistant Teacher and also in view of the fact that his father was working as Assistant Teacher, the petitioner ought to have been appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher. Learned counsel further' argues that merely because he had accepted appointment on Class-IV post, his right appointment to Class-III post has not extinguished. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Akshay Verma, AC to learned Sr. SC-I appearing for the respondent-State, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that no right has accrued to the petitioner to get appointment by way of compassionate ground for the second time. Earlier, the petitioner has accepted the appointment and joined the post offered to him. Mr. Akshay Verma, AC to learned Sr. SC-I appearing for the respondent-State, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that no right has accrued to the petitioner to get appointment by way of compassionate ground for the second time. Earlier, the petitioner has accepted the appointment and joined the post offered to him. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner also did not fulfill the requisite qualification for appointment as Assistant Teacher and after accepting the appointment, petitioner has made an application for consideration of his case for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, which is not tenable in the eyes of law, as no second compassionate appointment can be made. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference for the following facts and reasons: (I) Petitioner has duly accepted the appointment to Class-IV post. (II) Petitioner does not fulfill the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. (III) Law is well settled that no consideration can be shown for second compassionate appointment. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajasthan SRTC vs. Revat Singh, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 802 : [2015 (2) JLJR (SC) 310], has clearly held 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." 8. As a sequel to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncement and legal propositions, no interference is warranted in the instant writ application and as such, the same is hereby dismissed.