By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to quash and set aside the order dated 02.01.2012 and further prayed to direct the respondents authorities to give compassionated appointment to the petitioner on any Class-IV post in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition are as under:-
2.1 Petition's father was working as Police Constable in Wankaner City Police Station and was died during the service on 23.08.2002. After the death of the father, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on 16.09.2002, but the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was minor. The mother of the petitioner has also made an application for compassionate appointment, but it was rejected on the ground that she does not posses the requisite qualification and she is age barred. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations, bu no response was given by the respondent authorities. The petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 17953 of 2007 before this Court, whereby the petitioner was directed to make representation by order dated 17.07.2007. The petitioner preferred another Special Civil Application No. 13241 of 2011 before this Court, whereby the respondent authorities were directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner, respondent authorities have rejected the representation of the petitioner only on the ground that petitioner did not complete the 16 years and is short of 16 days.
3. Mr.
Yogen Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent authorities have not considered the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment because the petitioner did not attain the age of majority, but the petitioner was only short of 16 days for attaining the age of majority. Therefore, the order of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, unjust, illegal and contrary to the principle of natural justice. After attaining the age of majority, the respondent authorities by one or other pretext, did not consider the case of the petitioner, which is bad in the eyes of law. He further contended that the petitioner is not seeking any higher post, but only Class-IV posts.
4. Notice was duly served to the respondents and they have filed their reply. They have stated in para 4 and 5 of the reply as under:-
"4. At the time of death of the petitioner's father and at the time of application of appointment, the petitioner was holding the age about 16 years 11 months and 27 days. Looking to the conditions of Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000, the petitioner is not fulfilling the age criteria and hence his application was rejected by the authority.
5. It is clearly stated in Clause -8 of the resolutions dated 10.03.2000 that in no case the compassionate appointment will be given in any circumstances after waiting till any member of the dependent family who was minor at the time of the death of the employee becomes major. It is also stated in the same policy that no relaxation can be given in the minimum age limit prescribed in the Recruitment Rules of the relevant post. The present petitioner was not fulfilling the condition of the Resolution dated 10.03.2000 and hence his application was rejected and impugned order is just fit and proper. Therefore, the present matter is required to be dismissed on this ground alone.
5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the evidence and material on record, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate basis because at the time of death of the father, the petitioner was minor. The Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 clearly suggests that in no case the compassionate appointment will be given in any circumstances after waiting long till any member of the dependent family becomes major. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate basis. Thus, the view taken by the respondent authorities is just and proper.
6. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of any merits and hence, the same is hereby is dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs. No interference is called for.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J] Siddharth// Top