(1.) The husband of the petitioner late Sube Singh who was working in CRPF as Sub- Inspector in 131 Battalion died while in service on 29.1.1999. The Petitioner gave an application on 16.2.1999 to the Commandant, 131 Battalion for appointment of her son on compassionate grounds because the financial condition of the family was very poor. The petitioner received no reply of her application dated 16.2.1999. The Petitioner on being instructed gave another application on 31.5.1999 to IG/NS and submitted that she had no other source of income except the salary of her late husband and the agriculture income was a good as nil. The Petitioner was informed by letter dated 25.8.1999 by the Commandant 131 Battalion that the economic condition of the petitioner's family was good and that her one son was already employed in CRPF. Therefore, the matter of recruiting one of her unemployed sons was not found worth considering.
(2.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid decision conveyed vide letter dated 25.8.1999. It is the submission of the petitioner that her application was arbitrarily and illegally rejected by the IGP/NS summarily and without considering the case of the petitioner on merit. The IG/NS arbitrarily held that the economic condition of the petitioner's family was proper/good whereas the family has only share of one and half acres of land in dry area and were having only meagre income from this small piece of agriculture land. The Inspector General without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy about the financial position of the family and without any basis gave the arbitrary decision. The Inspector General/NS was also not competent authority to reject the case of the petitioner because the competent authority as per the rules to decide the matter was Director General/CRPF. The IG/NS also took the decision not consider the case of the petitioner because the eldest son of the petitioner was employed in CRPF. The IG/NS failed to consider that the eldest son of the petitioner was recruited in CRPF on merit when the husband of the petitioner was alive. The IG/NS also failed to consider that the eldest son of the petitioner was having his own family and was living separately from the petitioner's family and was not contributing for upkeeping of the family. The IG/NS also failed to consider that as per the guidelines one member of the family being already employed in Govt. service was no bar to give employment on compassionate grounds.
(3.) When this matter came up for preliminary hearing on 17.2.2000, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is rejected on two grounds, namely, (i) the family is not in good condition and (ii) one of the sons of the deceased employee is already in employment. It was contended that no reasons are stated while rejecting the application as to how the family of the petitioner was in good condition. It was also submitted that competent authority to decide this case was Director General and the decision had been taken by an authority inferior to him. These submissions were recorded in the order dated 17.2.2000 and the respondents were directed to produce the relevant records. Today Ms Barkha Babbar has produced the original records and a perusal thereof shows that all the aspects of the case were duly considered by the respondents before rejecting the application of the petitioner, The relevant portion of the note sheet reads as under: