Heard Mr. Jadeja, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Patel, learned AGP, for the respondent No.1 - State, who appeared upon service of advance copy.
1.1 In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and at the request of learned counsel for the contesting parties, the petition is taken up for hearing and decision today.
1.2 Rule.
Mr. Patel, learned AGP, waive service of notice of Rule for the respondent No.1.
2. This petition is directed against the orders/communications dated 12.5.2010 and 28.6.2010 whereby the respondent - Competent Authority has rejected petitioner's application seeking appointment on compassionate ground merely on the premise that the application was made after expiry of period of 2 years from the date on which the petitioner became major.
2.1 On the other hand, the petitioner has submitted and demonstrated that the application was made before expiry of period of 2 years.
3. If the facts are taken into account so as to consider and appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the contesting parties, it emerges from the record that present petitioner's father expired on 12.3.1993. At the relevant time, the petitioner was minor. The birth date of the petitioner is 1.10.1984. He became major on 1.10.2010. Therefore, even according to the decision of the Competent Authority, the petitioner was required to make application seeking appointment on compassionate ground within period of 2 years, after becoming major. Thus, if the ground on which the petitioner's said application has been rejected is taken into account, then, the application should have been made on or before 30.9.2004. In the impugned orders/communications, without mentioning the date on which the application was made by the petitioner and/or received by the Competent Authority, it is merely mentioned that the application was not made on or before 30.9.2004 and that therefore, the application cannot be taken into consideration.
3.1 However, on perusal of the record, particularly the document at Annexure - D (page-14), it emerges that the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground was made by the petitioner on 6.7.2004 i.e. atleast 2 months before the date on which the prescribed time limit would expire.
4. Mr.
Jadeja, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the application was tendered in the office of Competent Authority and it was received on 6.7.2004, which is evident from the stamp put by the Clerk to the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Godhra. Thus, it, prima facie, emerges from the said document that the petitioner had submitted his application on 6.7.2004, i.e. 2 months before the last date for submission. It, however, appears that the respondent - Competent Authority has not taken the said aspect into account and it is not clearly mentioned in the impugned orders/communications as to on what basis the Competent Authority has observed that the application was not made on or before 30.9.2004.
5. Mr.
Patel, learned AGP, has not been able to explain as to how and on what basis the Competent Authority has observed that the application was not made on or before 30.9.2004. He has also not been able to dispute or controvert the submissions made on the basis of the document (Annexure-D page-14).
6. Under the circumstances, it appears that present petition deserves to be allowed with below mentioned directions:-
6.1 The Competent Authority shall take into account the document placed by the petitioner (Annexure-D page-14 to present petition) and shall also take into account the stamp and signature put by the Clerk to the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Godhra on the application dated 6.7.2004. After taking into account the said document, the Competent Authority shall determine as to whether the application was accordingly received in the office or not and on that basis, fresh decision about receipt of application within specified time limit will be taken.
6.2 It is further clarified and directed that if it is found from the record that the application was so received in the office before 30.9.2004, particularly on 6.7.2004 as claimed by the petitioner, then, the said application will be decided by the Competent Authority in accordance with law and as per relevant and applicable policy.
With the aforesaid observations, clarifications and direction, present petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the extent above.
Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc Top