1. By way of the present petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
“(A) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the respondents and to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing that the impugned action of the respondents not giving appointment on compassionate ground is illegal, bad, unconstitutional, violative of principles of fair play and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(B) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground”.
2. Brief facts of the present petition are as under:
2.1 The father of the petitioner was serving as a carpenter in the respondent No.3-College and during his service, he died on 15.4.1997.
2.2 The petitioner has submitted his application and requested the authority to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.
2.3 The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of income.
2.4 On 18.9.2002, the petitioner has submitted an application and requested the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner as the Government has cancelled the limit of the income.
2.5 The respondents have not given any reply and therefore, the petitioner personally gone to office of the respondent No.2 and at that time he was told by the respondent's office that as the mother of the petitioner was working as a Class-IV employee, it is not possible for the respondents to appoint the petitioner.
2.6 The petitioner has requested the respondent No.2 that in so many cases the respondents have appointed the similarly situated persons. But till today, the petitioner has not received any reply from the respondents.
3. Respondent No.1 has filed affidavit in reply, more particularly, paragraph No.7, which reads as under:
“7. As regards para-8 of the petition it is respectfully submit that as per the G.R. dated 7.9.2002, no compassionate appointment can be given in the case of an employee whose one dependent is working in Central / State Government or their undertaking/boards/ Corporations, Grant in Aid Institution, Local Self Government Institutions, Nationalized Banks etc. and he was replied accordingly so there is no need to replied again. As regards the averment of the petitioner regarding an appointment on compassionate grounds of similarly situated persons, the petitioner has not given any details thereof and it therefore not possible for the dependent to reply thereto”.
4. In view of following decisions, namely;
(I) (2012) 7 SCC 248. Shreejit L. V/s. Dy.
Director (Education) Kerala and Others.
(II) (2011) 13 SCC 42. Local Administration Dept. and another V/s. M.Selvanayagam alias Kumaravelu.
(III)(2010) 11 SCC 661. State Bank of India and another V/s. Raj Kumar.
(IV) (2011) 13 SCC 131. Union of India and another V/s. B.Kishore
(V) 2012 STPL (Web) 498 SC. State of Gujarat & Ors. V/s. Arvindkumar T.Tiwari and Anr.
the petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
5. However, if the mother of the petitioner has expired, it will be open for the petitioner to apply in view of the fact that she was in service under the prevailing policy.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (ashish)