Most. Mahadevi Devi vs The State of Jharkhand

Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.—Mr. Shamim Akhtar appears on behalf of the respondent-State. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.

The petitioner, who is a widow of Chowkidar, late Kaushal Kumar Tanti prays for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Chowkidar at Saraiyahat Anchal, Dumka. The husband of the petitioner namely Kaushal Kumar Tanti was a Chowkidar at Saraiyahat Anchal and he died on 28.11.2011 leaving behind his widow and children. After the death of her husband the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and all the documents required was filed within stipulated period i.e. 06.01.2012. On 24.02.2014, a committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Dumka for appointment on compassionate ground and the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the Committee on the ground that educational certificate given by the petitioner was not from a recognised institution. After rejection of the case of the petitioner on 24.02.2014, again she made a fresh application with a fresh certificate granted by Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar for reconsideration of her case. The establishment committee further took the matter for consideration and made an enquiry regarding her age and the genuineness of the certificate.

Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for the (2) W.P. (S) No. 922 of 201 6 respondent-State fairly submits that the case of the petitioner was rejected earlier therefore she can not apply for second time on the same ground but the establishment committee has considered her case and till date no order has been passed. Mr. Akhtar fairly submits that her case is under consideration and the respondent authority will be passing reasoned order in accordance with law.

Having gone through the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent, I am of the considered view that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right as it is in contravention to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as also it infringes the right of others for appointment and in the instant case as the case of the petitioner has already been rejected by the respondents with a reasoned order, further consideration of the case on the same ground is not sustainable in the eyes of law. After perusal of the records of the case as annexed in the writ petition, I am of the view that no case is made out for compassionate appointment but as the respondent authorities have not passed any order on the representation of the petitioner which is under consideration, I hereby, direct the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Dumka to pass reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner which is under consideration preferably within a period of two months after receipt of copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of.