Valiben Jagmalbhai Pithiya vs State of Gujarat and Others

Bhagwati Prasad, J.—The petitioner had earlier come to this Court. This Court had, without opining on merits, observed that the case of the petitioner should be considered in accordance with law as is applicable on the relevant date for the petitioner. The petitioner''s case is that the policy for compassionate appointment has for the first time incorporated the requirement of SSC (10th pass) before the petitioner had applied on 1.10.2005 for getting appointed as Peon. Therefore, the petitioner should have been favoured with a favourable order.

The respondents have pointed out that on 16.3.2005 the State Government has amended the Rules and the qualification for the post of Class IV employees has been amended. The qualification of the employees has been made as SSC Examination pass. Since the qualification for the post of Class IV employees has been amended from 16.3.2005, that pushed fact got incorporated for any appointment which is to be made under any policy in the State Government. That being the position, if the incorporation was not made in the policy for compassionate appointment then it is also a ministerial lapse and it cannot be said that any post of Class IV employees can be filled up after 16.3.2005 with pass of 4th standard.

The respondents have pointed out that the policy of compassionate appointment has been extended to the Grant-in-aid schools after 4.10.2005. Prior to that there was no policy for giving appointment on the compassionate ground in Grant-in-aid schools. That being the position, on the date when the application was moved by the petitioner i.e. 1.10.2005 on that day he had no entitlement to get the appointment in Grant-in-aid institution on compassionate ground. The entitlement of the petitioner is of subsequent day. The policy itself having been extended on 4.10.2005 any death prior to this date will not cover the case. Therefore, the petition should fail on this ground.

I have considered the rival submissions. Firstly, on the date when the husband of the petitioner expired, there was no policy to offer appointment on compassionate ground in the institutions which are Grant-in-aid. Thus on the date when the death of husband of the petitioner occurred, the petitioner had no right to get appointed. Further on the date when the death of the husband of the petitioner occurred and when the petitioner sought appointment on compassionate ground, the State Government had already issued the Notification amending the qualification for Class IV post enhancing it to 10th pass. When general policy comes in vogue and qualification is amended then a special treatment is not possible to be given to the persons who seek appointment on the compassionate ground. Further the policy was not in vogue for aided institutions and therefore in the aided institutions when the date on that day the death of the husband of the petitioner occurred, no appointment could have been offered on compassionate ground. On this ground also the petition fails. The petitioner is not entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground.

The rejection of the petition of the petitioner for getting appointment on compassionate ground would not otherwise disentitle the petitioner to seek appointment if she is otherwise eligible.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition is rejected. Rule discharged.

Order below Civil Application:

It is ordered that the order of the District Education Officer will be ineffective in view of the fact that Special Civil Application No. 4348 of 2008 had already been disposed of by this Court. The applicant will be at liberty to proceed with the appointment of peon in accordance with law. No objection certificate is issued to it for making the appointment. This application stands disposed of.