Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11417/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11417 of 2009
=========================================================
BHAVESH
RAVJIBHAI MAKWANA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SAMIR B GOHIL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RC JANI for Respondent(s) : 1,
DS AFF.NOT
FILED (N) for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 08/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and
setting aside the orders dated 01.06.2006 and 10.07.2009 passed by
the respondent no. 2 authority and further to direct the respondent
authority to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner on
compassionate ground in the department of the respondents.
2. The
father of the petitioner who was working with the respondent died in
harness and therefore the petitioner made an application on
12.05.2006 for appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent
authorities denied appointment to the petitioner on the ground of not
fulfilling requisite qualifications. The petitioner thereafter
acquired the requisite qualification and reapproached the respondent
no. 2. However, the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 10.07.2009
rejected the application and therefore the present petition is filed.
3. Mr.
Gohil, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted
that the respondent has passed the impugned order rejecting the
application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was
not possessing educational qualification of tenth standard as per
G.R. dated 16.03.2005. Meanwhile the petitioner appeared at the SSC
examination and passed the same in March 2009 and therefore the case
of the petitioner ought to have been considered on compassionate
grounds.
4. This
Court has considered the materials placed on record. It is an
admitted position that pursuant to the death of the petitioner’s
father on 18.03.2006, the application for compassionate appointment
was preferred on 12.05.2006. However, the application of the
petitioner was rejected by the respondent authority vide order dated
01.06.2006 on the ground that he did not fulfill the requisite
qualification of standard ten at the relevant time.
4.1 The
petitioner thereafter cleared SSC examination in March 2009 i.e.
after about three years. The purpose of providing a compassionate
appointment is to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the
breadwinner of the family. It cannot be claimed as a matter of
fundamental or statutory right. Moreover, it is also a well settled
law that the respondent is required to consider the application for
compassionate appointment on the basis of the scheme which was
prevailing at the time of the application. The financial
implications which arise on the part of the government is also
required to be considered.
5. As
a result of hearing and perusal of records, it appears that the
respondent authority has passed the order rejecting the application
of the petitioner considering various factors more particularly the
fact that the petitioner was not qualified for the post in question
at the time of the death of the petitioner’s father. Subsequent
acquisition of the qualification shall not make the petitioner
eligible fundamentally for the appointment. The appointment on
compassionate ground not being a fundamental or statutory right
cannot be enforced upon any authority. Moreover, considering the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2009(6) SCC 481,
this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary power in
favour of the petitioner and the petition requires to be dismissed.
6. In
the premises aforesaid, petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//
Top