Vinay Kumar … v. 1.State of Jharkhand 2.Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi 3.Deputy Inspector General of
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 2608 of 2013 --- Vinay Kumar … … Petitioner Versus 1.State of Jharkhand 2.Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi 3.Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand, Ranchi 4.Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Pakur 5.Superintendent of Police, Pakur … … Respondents --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: M/s. S. N. Pathak, Senior Advocate, --- Rishikesh Giri, Rakesh Kumar Roy, Birju Thakur & Fayyaz Ahmad, Advocate : Ms. Shivani Verma, J.C. to Sr. S. C. II For the Respondents --- 3/13.12.2013 I. A. No. 8221 of 2013 & 8414 of 2013: I. A. No. 8221 of 2013 has been filed seeking amendment in
Decision
the writ petition challenging order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the Director General of Police (Headquarters) and I. A. No. 8414 of 2013 challenging decision taken by the District Compassionate Committee on 11.02.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, though, the petitioner has made a prayer in the writ petition seeking appointment on a Class III post, due to inadvertence the aforesaid order and decision were not impugned in the writ petition, and therefore, the present applications have been filed. Since the proposed amendment would not change the basic nature of the writ petition, I.A. Nos. 8221 and 8414 of 2013 are allowed. W. P. (S) No. 2608 of 2013: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the father of the petitioner -2- who was a Hawaldar died in harness on 23.02.2009. The petitioner preferred an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground and on 29.05.2010, a decision was taken for appointment of the petitioner on a Class IV post. The petitioner was offered an appointment on the post of constable. He was denied appointment on a Class III post, only on the ground that he had not submitted the typing certificate. The petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3272 of 2011 which was allowed by order dated 13.09.2011 directing the respondent no. 4 to decide the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on a Class III post. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the claim of the petitioner was considered and it was approved by the District Compassionate Committee, Pakur in its proceeding dated 19.11.2011 and a favourable recommendation was made by the Committee, however by order dated 17.01.2012, the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on a Class III post was rejected by the Director General (Headquarters), Jharkhand. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed taking a plea that in view of the resolution no. 13293 dated 05.10.1991 since the petitioner was offered an appointment and he has already joined the post of constable which was offered to him on compassionate ground, he could not have been given another appointment on a Class III post. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that at the first instance itself, the petitioner had approached this Court against the rejection of his claim for his appointment on a Class III post and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner accepted the offer of appointment on a Class IV post willingly. The petitioner had taken a specific plea of discrimination and the writ petition was allowed by this Court issuing a direction to the respondent no. 4 to decide the claim of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in “Anil Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others” reported in 2012 (2) JCR 30 (Jhr.). -3- 5. As against the above, Ms. Shivani Verma, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand has contended that the scheme of compassionate appointment envisages help to the family in distress and since this is an exception to the regular mode of appointment therefore, it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. She has further contended that in the present case in view of the resolution no. 13293 dated 05.10.1991, there is a bar to offer any further appointment to a person who was already appointed on compassionate ground. She has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “State Bank of India & another Vs. Somvir Singh” reported in (2007) 4 SCC 778, to contend that the scheme of compassionate appointment has to be construed strictly and it has to be followed by the authorities. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the specific plea taken by the respondents to deny the claim of the petitioner, that is, the bar under resolution dated 05.10.1991 would not be applicable in the present case. The claim of the petitioner was that only because he failed to submit the typing certificate, he was not offered appointment on the compassionate ground on a Class III post and this Court after considering the rival claims, allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directing the respondent no. 4 to consider the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on a Class III post. I further find that in Anil Kumar (supra), a case in which a person was offered an employment on a Class IV post on compassionate ground was permitted to agitate his claim for appointment on a Class III post, on the ground that other similarly situated persons were offered appointment on a Class III post, however the said person was denied such offer of appointment on a Class III post. In the present case also, I find that the petitioner was offered appointment on a Class IV post and he was not offered appointment on a Class III post only on the ground that he failed to submit typing certificate. This has not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is -4- eligible for appointment on a Class III post. The District Compassionate committee considered the case of the petitioner and recommended for appointment on a Class III post. The present is not a case in which a person accepted appointment willingly and then agitated a claim for appointment on a higher post. From the very beginning the petitioner has agitated his claim for appointment on a Class III post. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents-authorities are directed to considered the claim of the petitioner for appointment on a Class III post. R. Shekhar Cp 2/AFR (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)