JUDGMENT
R.K. Merathia, J.
1. Heard the parties finally.
2. Petitioner is seeking a direction upon the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground.
3. Petitioner’s case in the writ petition in short is that he is the second son of the deceased employee Jogi Mahto who died in harness on 30.11.1998. Petitioner has twonames-‘Bhuneshwar Mahto’ and ‘Kouleshwar Mahto’. In the Admit Card of the Matriculation Examination his name is mentioned as ‘Kouleshwar Mahto’ s/o of Jogi Mahto and his date of birth is mentioned as 12.1.1977. In the service records his other name’Bhuneshwar Mahto’ was written. His father sworn an affidavit on 17.8.1994 (Annexure-2) saying that petitioner-‘Kouleshwar Mahto’ is his second son whose name has been wrongly mentioned in service record as ‘Bhuneshwar Mahto’. Petitioner applied for his compassionate appointment on 24.2.1999. By letter dated 27.9.2003, the police was requested to enquire about the genuinity of the petitioner. The police in its enquiry report dated 18.10.2003 stated that petitioner-‘Kouleshwar Mahto’ is the second son of late Jogi Mahto. Petitioner’s application was resubmitted, but the same was rejected on 6.7.2007. Therefore, petitioner filed this writ petition.
4. The case of the respondents, inter alia, is that petitioner’s name nowhere appeared in the service records of the deceased employee and therefore, his claim for compassionate appointment was rightly rejected. Thereafter when his case was taken up by one of the Union, the police was requested to enquire about the genuinity of the petitioner. The police did not confirm the petitioner’s contention that he was also called as ‘Bhuneshwar Mahto’, rather, the police found that the deceased employee had no son with the name of ‘Bhuneshwar Mahto’. However, the police reported that the petitioner is second son of the deceased employee. Regarding the said affidavit dated 17.8.1994 (Annexure-2) it is said that it is a manufactured document which will be clear from the other affidavit submitted by the petitioner of the same Notary Public and that such affidavit was never submitted with the respondents and that the petitioner has suppressed material facts from this Court.
Learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents, also pointed out regarding the discrepancy in the age appearing in different documents and submitted that there was/is serious dispute about the genunity of the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that in any event, the petitioner has survived for about 10 years by now; and that the respondents are having surplus strength of manpower in its roll; and therefore, the respondents may not be directed to consider petitioner’s case.
5. It appears from the letter dated 6/11.1.2007 that petitioner’s claim was rejected far back on 5.11.1999 and then again on 2.8.2002, but petitioner has nowhere said that he had no knowledge of the said orders. When in the counter affidavit it was said, that his claim was rejected earlier also, the said letter dated 6/11.1.2007, was filed by the petitioner. Petitioner did not move any court of law within a reasonable time, after 1999 or 2002.
Moreover, a copy of the counter affidavit was served on the counsel for the petitioner far back on 14.12.2007, but the petitioner has not controverted the statement made therein that the purported affidavit dated 17.8.1994 (Annexure-2) was a manufactured document and it was never submitted to the respondents by the deceased employee.
Further, petitioner’s contention that his other name is ‘Bhuneshwar Mahto’ has not been found correct by the police though it was reported by the police that petitioner is second son of the deceased employee. It is also to be noted that, there is serious discrepancy in the age. In the service excerpts dated 1.12.1987, the age of ‘Bhuneshwar Mahto’ is mentioned as 16 years as on 1.4.1987, according to which he was born in the year 1971 but in the Admit Card of Matriculation Examination, the date of birth is mentioned as 12.1.1977.
Thus there appears to be serious dispute between the parties regarding the genuinity of the petitioner. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents were not justified in rejecting petitioner’s claim.
6. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto v. C.C.L. reported in 2007 (4) JCR 146 (SC) is of no help to the petitioner. The fact situation in the said case was entirely different which will appear from paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 thereof. It was, inter alia, found that the respondents failed to perform their duty, but in the present case it cannot be said that the respondents were not justified in rejecting petitioner’s claim in view of the serious dispute about his genuinity. The case of Radhika Devi reported in 2005(2) JLJR 671 is also of no help to the petitioner. In that case, the claim of appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that the name of the dependant did not appear from any of the documents relating to service of the deceased employee whereas several documents were annexed to show that his name was mentioned in L.T.C. form and other documents and on enquiry, the name was found genuine. In the present case in none of the service documents, the name of petitioner appears. Even if it is accepted that petitioner is the second son of the deceased employee, he is guilty of laches and delay in filing this writ petition and is also guilty of suppression of material fact as noticed above. Moreover, a fabricated document (Annexure-2) has been annexed with the writ petition. The petitioner has survived for about 10 years. It has been held in Umesh Kumar Nagpal that the consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future; and that such appointment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. Paragraph 11 of State of J & K and Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir reads as follows:
We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought “compassion”, the Bench ought to have considered the larger issued as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is o necessity to say “goodbye” to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
7. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, as noticed above, I am not inclined to direct the respondents to consider/appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.
8. In the result this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.