Ghori Rohankhan Yunuskhan vs State of Gujarat and Others

Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Rule. Mr. Janak Rawal, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the matter is being heard and decided finally, today.

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:

(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order of direction for quashing and setting aside impugned order dtd.30.11.2010 passed by Respondent No. 3 as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified, without application of mind, contrary to the settled legal position, in gross breach of principles of natural justice, and also violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and further be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to consider the application of the Petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground in the interest of justice;

(B) YOUR LORSHIPS be pleased to stay the implementation, execution of the impugned order annexed at Annexure "A" to this petition, pending, admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition in the interest of justice and equity;

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to consider the representation dated 01.12.2010 annexed at Annexure-`H'' to the petition submitted by the Petitioner for the appointment of the Petitioner in class IV category on compassionate ground in view of the submission made in the present petition, within such stipulated time as may be deemed fit by this Hon''ble Court after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner in the interest of justice and equity, pending, admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;

(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice;

The brief facts of the case are that the father of the Petitioner expired on 29.11.2006, while in service. The Petitioner submitted an application dated 06.12.2006 to Respondent No. 3, requesting for appointment on compassionate grounds on a Class-IV post. The Petitioner was not aware that the application had to be submitted in a proper format, therefore, another application in proper format was submitted by the Petitioner. At the time of making the application for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds, the Petitioner had failed in the SSC examination, therefore, the said application was not accepted by the Respondent authority. Thereafter, the Petitioner again appeared in the said examination and acquired the educational qualification of SSC in the month of July 2010. He once again submitted an application in proper format on 05.08.2010, for grant of compassionate appointment. By communication dated 21.09.2010, Respondent No. 3 called upon the Petitioner to submit certain documents. By communication dated 24.09.2010, the Petitioner immediately furnished the requisite documents and details asked for by Respondent No. 3. However, Respondent No. 3 has rejected the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds by impugned order dated 30.11.2010, on the ground that the Petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification of having passed the SSC examination, as required by Government Resolutions dated 10.03.2000 and 07.09.2002 within a period of six months from the date of death of his father. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition Mr. A.B. Joshi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that the rejection of the application of the Petitioner by Respondent No. 3 is arbitrary, as the Petitioner now possesses the requisite educational qualifications. It is further submitted that the embargo of six months contained in the Government Resolutions dated 10.03.2000 and 07.09.2002 is not a realistic one as the time of death of the deceased employee is not in the control of the dependent who has to clear the examination within the stipulated period of six months from the date of death of the employee.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court, order dated 15.10.2010, passed in Special Civil Application No. 8553/2010 wherein the Court had directed the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner therein for appointment on compassionate grounds, in similar circumstances. It is stated by the learned advocate for the Petitioner that the Respondents may be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the observations of the Court made in this judgment.

Mr. Janak Rawal, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that the Petitioner did not obtain the requisite qualifications of SSC within a period of six months from the date of death of his father, therefore, his request has been rightly rejected.

I have heard Mr. A.B. Joshi, learned advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Janak Rawal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents and have perused the averments made in the petition.

In Special Civil Application No. 8553/2010, decided by order dated 15.10.2010, the Petitioner therein had made an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds within the time limit of six months. However, he did not possess the minimum educational qualifications of new SSC on the date of filing his application, therefore, such appointment was denied to him. In such a situation, the observations made in the said order are reproduced herein below:

Any insistence for a particular qualification that too for giving appointment in Class-IV category while considering the case for appointment on compassionate ground is nothing but indirectly frustrating the object of giving appointment on compassionate ground, more so, when the candidate is not possessing qualification of new SSC on the date of his filing the application and the result is declared thereafter. In the present case, the result was declared on 31.5.2007. The action of the authority, rejecting the application on this ground is not only unjust, but arbitrary as it frustrates the entire object of providing the scheme for giving appointment on compassionate ground.

3.1 Taking into consideration the fact that the father of the Petitioner was serving as Peon in the office of the Collector, Porbandar, what is claimed by the Petitioner is only appointment on compassionate ground and the object of floating the scheme for giving appointment on compassionate ground is to see that the family is not pushed into pitiable condition on sad demise of bread earner. In the present case, the Petitioner was not holding the new SSC examination qualification is not something which was within the control of the Petitioner and more particularly unfaithful event of the death of the Petitioner''s father was certainly not within the control of anybody. It cannot be foreseen by the Petitioner to expedite the getting of required qualification only because his father is going to expire on a particular day similarly it is not possible for the father of the Petitioner to postpone the death until his son gets the qualification of new SSC so as to enable him to get appointment on compassionate ground.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the decision of the authority of denying the appointment on compassionate ground to the Petitioner is unjust, arbitrary and is required to be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. The authorities are directed to consider and appoint the Petitioner on compassionate ground within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.

In the present case, the impugned order dated 30.11.2010 reveals that the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected on the ground that he did not acquire the qualification of SSC within a period of six months from the date of death of his father. It is not disputed that the order dated 15.10.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8553/2010 has not been challenged by the Respondents.

In view of the observations made in order dated 15.10.2010, reproduced hereinabove, and the fact that the order dated 15.10.2010 has not been challenged by the Respondents, the case of the Petitioner requires reconsideration at the hands of the Respondents.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, and as the Petitioner has now passed the requisite examination, the interest of justice would be met, if the Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the Petitioner in the right perspective, keeping in view the observations made in order dated 15.10.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8553/2010. It is so directed. The decision, after reconsideration, may be conveyed to the Petitioner at the earliest. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court, if aggrieved.

The petition is disposed of, in the above terms, without entering into the merits of the case. Rule is made absolute to the above extent only.