IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 2400 of 2006()
1. B.SARALA, RATHEESH BHAVAN,
... Petitioner
2. RATHEESHKUMAR.R., RATHEESH BHAVAN,
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE COMMANDANT, G.R.E.F. CENTRE
3. THE SECRETARY, BOARDER ROAD DEVELOPMENT
4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER
For Respondent :SRI.JAYAPRADEEP. V., ADDL.CGSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :09/01/2007
O R D E R
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR &
K.R. UDAYABHANU, JJ.
==============================
W.A.NO.2400 OF 2006
============================
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2007
JUDGMENT
Abdul Gafoor,J.
Heard counsel for the appellant and the
standing counsel for the Union of India. It is the case
of the appellants/writ petitioners that the
employment assistance to the second appellant,son
of the deceased driver in the Army service, was
rejected. The father of the 2nd appellant died on 3-6-
1994 and application for employment assistance was
submitted on 25-12-2002. The reasons stated for the
delay was that the 2nd appellant was a minor at the
time of death of his father. He preferred application
soon after he became major. It was rejected on the
ground of the delay. This was challenged in writ
petition, W.P.(C)NO.18609/2004 and this Court
WA.2400/2006 -2-
quashed Ext.P4 letter on the finding that there was no
justification to reject the application solely on the
ground of delay in submitting the application and
directed the authorities to consider the matter
afresh. Thereafter Ext.P7 order was passed again
rejecting the application on the ground of non-
availability of enough vacancies and also on the
ground of delay. The learned single Judge has found
force in the submission on behalf of the appellants
that the ground of delay urged in Ext.P7 was not
justified. The learned single Judge taking note of the
contents of Clause (k) in Ext.P7 found that the
administration was justified in considering the
candidates based on their turn included in the list
prepared by the screening committee and that the
2nd appellant did not submit his details in the
prescribed DD form, so that the screening
committee could not consider his case. The learned
single Judge also found that 100% of vacancies
cannot be reserved for compassionate appointments
WA.2400/2006 -3-
and administration was justified in reserving a quota
and that already 136 candidates were awaiting
appointments on compassionate grounds. So no
appointment could have been given to the 2nd
appellant. The writ petition was dismissed.
Any how rejection of his application on the
ground of delay was earlier quashed. Necessarily
he deserves consideration for appointment on
compassionate grounds and his name also have to be
included in the list of the candidates awaiting for
compassionate appointments. Whether he will get
appointment before he completes the age bar is a
matter that may arise later. Any how equal
consideration shall have to be shown to the 2nd
appellant as well.
Accordingly, we are of the view that the 2nd
appellant shall be allowed to submit his details in the
prescribed DD form referred to in Clause (k) in Ext.P7
as he has already submitted the application
immediately after he became major. If such form is
WA.2400/2006 -4-
furnished within 15 days from today, the 4th
respondent shall consider those details and include
the name of the 2nd appellant in the list, on approval
by the screening committee, so that he can be
considered at the appropriate turn. The writ appeal
is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
JUDGE
Sd/-
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
ks JUDGE
TRUE COPY
P.S.TO JUDGE
WA.2400/2006 -5-
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR &
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JJ
W.A.NO. 2400 OF 2006-E
JUDGMENT
Date: 9-1-2007