Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8534/2010 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8534 of 2010
=========================================================
KAMLESH
JIVABHAI PARMAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JAYESH A KOTECHA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR NIRAG PATHAK AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
Date
: 27/07/2010
ORAL ORDER
The
petitioner’s father was serving with the Forest Department as Vidi
Gate Keeper and expired on 15.8.2005. The petitioner, therefore,
applied for appointment on compassionate ground and after processing
the application, he has been appointed as a peon in the office of
District Sports Officer, Bahumali Bhavan, Junagadh by order dated
31.8.2009. The petitioner is aggrieved with the
respondent-authorities as he is not given Class-III employment. The
case of the petitioner is that he should have been appointed as
Class-III and in the office in which his father was working, as there
are vacant posts in the said office where his father was working. In
support of his assertion, he has relied on an information received
from the respondent-authorities, supplied under the Right to
Information Act, to show that Class-III posts are vacant. The
communication dated 27.1.2010 indicates that from 24.1.2009 to
29.12.2009, no post of Forest Guard is filled in, and four posts were
vacant as on 24.1.2009 in the office of the Forest Department at
Junagadh.
2. Heard
learned advocate Mr Kotecha for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr
Pathak for the respondent-authorities.
3. Mr
Kotecha indicated that pursuant to the application by the petitioner,
information was sought by communication dated 10.3.2006 (Annexure-A)
as to whether the petitioner possessed any qualification in
Computers. Mr Kotecha submitted that if the petitioner was not
eligible to be appointed why the information was sought. Mr Kotecha
further submitted that the petitioner has passed SSC and has also
passed Computer CCC examination, which would qualify him to be
appointed in Class-III post. He relied on the Government Resolution
dated 10.3.2000 (Annexure-F) in support of his argument that as far
as possible the appointment has to be given in the same office where
the deceased employee was working. The said G.R. also indicates that
for Class-III employment, academic qualification required is SSC pass
or more. He, therefore, submitted that the respondent-authorities
have acted in contravention of this G.R. and, therefore, the petition
may be entertained.
4. Learned
AGP Mr Pathak has opposed this petition. He submitted that the
deceased himself was working as a Class-IV employee. He submitted
further that appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of
right, it is a concession and the petitioner is appointed to the post
for which he is qualified and, therefore, the petition may be
dismissed.
5. Having
regard to the facts of the case, at the outset, it may be noted that
the petitioner has already been appointed on compassionate ground
pursuant to death of his father, who was himself working as Class-IV
employee with the respondent- Forest Department. The petitioner
qualified for Class-IV employment and he is, therefore, given that
employment. He cannot insist while seeking employment on
compassionate ground for any particular post or posting. It is a
settled proposition of law that appointment on compassionate ground
is a concession to the rule of appointment by requisite procedure,
but there is no exemption or relaxation given from fulfilling the
other eligibility criteria. The G.R. relied upon by both the sides
dated 10.3.2000 (Annexure-F) would show that appointment may be given
to the lowest rank on compassionate ground.
6. This
Court is at loss to know for which post the petitioner had applied
because he has not annexed the copy of his first application. The
deceased was certainly working as a Class-IV employee with the
respondent-Forest Department. The petitioner, therefore, cannot seek
any relief prayed for in the petition as Class-III employee. The
posts may be vacant, but that by itself, will not imbibe the
petitioner with any right.
7. The
petition, therefore, must fail and stands dismissed.
(A.L.
DAVE, J.)
zgs/-
Top