Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6652/2002 1/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6652 of 2002
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
JITENDRAKUMAR
A KHARADI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
CB DASTOOR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JASWANT K SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 22/03/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1.0 By
way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the impugned order dated 30.03.2001 passed by respondent No.2-
The Director of Police, Gandhinagar rejecting the application for
compassionate appointment.
2.0 The
father of the petitioner who was serving as P.S.I expired during
service period. The petitioner has, therefore applied for
compassionate appointment, which came to be rejected on the ground
that the family is getting Rs. 2630/- towards pension and, therefore,
he is not entitled to compassionate appointment. Hence, the
petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3.0 Heard
the learned advocates for the respective parties and perusal the
relevant documents. It appears that the application has been rejected
on the ground that the family has pension income which is not
disputed. Apart from that the purpose of providing appointment on
compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death fo the
breadwinner in the family and such appointment should therefore, be
provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The father of
the petitioner has expired in the year 1995 and the family survived
in all these years. Further, there was no effort on the part of the
petitioner to hear the present petition at any point of time. In
case of State of J & K V. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reported
in (2006) 5 SCC 766, the Apex Court has held as under:
11….
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 no necessity to say ‘goodbye’
to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the
cost if the interests of several of several others ignoring the
mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
4.0 The
above view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of
Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Anil Badyakar and others
reported in (2009) 13 SCC 112.
5.0 In
the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in the petition. The
same is accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to
costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
niru*
Top