1.0 By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents No. 1 to 4 to give compassionate appointment to the present petitioner.
2.0 Admittedly, the father of the petitioner who was serving as Watchman at the office of respondent No.4 died on duty on 14.10.1993. At that relevant point of time, the petitioner was minor. When the petitioner became major in the year 1998, he made an application on 29.06.1998 before respondent No.4 authority. The said application was forwarded to the respondent No.1. Since there was no reply from the respondent authority, petitioner made representation before the respondent authority. The respondent authority came to the conclusion that petitioner has not passed S.S. C examination, and therefore as per the resolution of the State of Gujarat on 16.03.2005 the present petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 10396 of 2007 before this Court which came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to consider the application of the present petitioner as per the policy prevailing at the time of application made by the petitioner. However, the respondent authority has taken the decision on 04.07.2007 not in favour of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner has filed the present petition on 09.07.2011.
3.0 Looking to the facts of the case, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India & Ors.
reported in AIR 2007 S.C. 1330, wherein, the following observations made in Para-10 are relevant;
"10. .......If petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could be granted to a reasonable period of about three years. The High Court did not examine whether on merit appellant had a case. If on merits it would have found that there was no scope for interference, it would have dismissed the writ petition on that score alone."
4.0 Considering the facts of the case in the background of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself inasmuch as the decision of 2007 is challenged in the year 2011.
5.0 Consequently, the petition is not entertained and is, accordingly, summarily rejected. No order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top