1. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief/s:-
"7 (A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, quashing and setting a aside the order dated 5.12.2011 passed by the respondent herein and further be pleased to direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Class-III employee on compassionate ground or in the alternate as a Class-IV employee in the office of the respondent forthwith.
(B) In the alternate, Your Lordship be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondent to grant financial help to the petitioner in exercise of clause-v of the government resolution dated 5.7.2011 (Annexure-T) forthwith.
(C)......"
2. Mr. Buch, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 5.12.2011 passed by respondent herein is arbitrary and unjust. He submitted that the competent authority has not considered petitioner's request for appointment on compassionate ground to any post in class -IV also, if not possible on any post in class-III and for that reason also the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
3. The petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner's father was in employment with the respondent, on post in class-IV. The petitioner's father died in harness on 25.7.2004. Thereafter the petitioner appears to have made the application somewhere in August 2004, for the appointment on compassionate ground.
4. A copy of the application made by the petitioner is available on record of present petition at Annexure-D (page 23) wherefrom it can be seen that the petitioner has made application for appointment on post in class-III, while his father was an employee in class-IV with the respondent herein. After having made the application, in August 2004, it appears, the petitioner remained idle until 2010 i.e. for almost 6 years. Somewhere in 2010 the petitioner preferred petition being SCA No.15866 of 2010 making grievance that his application dated 11.8.2004 has not been considered and the respondent has not granted appointment on compassionate ground.
5. It is necessary to emphasize the fact that the application was made in August 2004 and the petition making grievance came to be filed in 2010.
6. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 15.12.2010. The court (Coram:- Hon'ble Smt. Justice Abhilasha Kumari) observed in the said order that:
"2. The learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that the interest of justice would be served, if the respondent is directed to take a decision upon the application of the petitioner, at the earliest.
3. On the above statement being made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the following order is passed:-
The respondent shall consider and take a decision on the application dated 11.08.2004 of the petitioner, for grant compassionate appointment on, or before, 28.02.2011. "
7. It appears that subsequently the respondent authority has passed order dated 5.12.2011 and informed the petitioner that his application for appointment on compassionate ground on any post in class-III cannot be considered and he cannot be granted appointment on any post in class-III as requested by him in the application because he does not possess necessary qualification for being appointed on any post in class-III therefore on the ground that the petitioner is not duly qualified for being appointment in any post in class-III the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate came to be rejected.
8. Aggrieved by the said decision the petitioner is before this Court by this second petition preferred by him.
9. On perusal of the application made by the petitioner it appears that as of now the petitioner is about 37 years old.
10. It also emerges from the record that the petitioner made application for appointment on class-III post. However, subsequently vide communication dated 16.1.2007 the petitioner appears to have shown readiness to the appointment on class-IV post. It also emerges from the record that the petitioner had approached this Court after almost 6 years after having made application, however said petition was disposed of with the aforesaid observation and now in pursuance of the said order the competent authority has passed order dated 5.12.2011 whereby the petitioner's application is rejected on the ground that he is not qualified for being appointment on any post in class-III.
11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the readiness shown by the petitioner vide communication dated 16.1.2007 does not appear to have been placed before the competent authority or the competent authority does not appear to have taken the said request into account and any decision on that count is not recorded in the order dated 5.12.2011, present petition is disposed of by setting aside the order dated 5.12.2011.
12. It would open to the petitioner to make application to the competent authority making reference of communication dated 16.1.2007 and to request the competent authority to take into consideration the same. The respondent authority on receipt of such application - representation, by taking into consideration the request made by the petitioner vide communication dated 16.1.2007, pass appropriate order. It is also clarified that such decision may be taken by the competent authority as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 10 weeks from the receipt of such application.
With the aforesaid clarification the petition stands disposed of.
(K.M.THAKER,J.) Suresh* Top