NANAK CHAND Vs. DELHI JAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of counsels for the parties, both these writ petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal by passing a common order, as the issues involved are common.

(2.) By way of the present petitions the petitioners have sought issuance of a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing/declaring the order dated 10th April, 2006 passed by the respondent, rejecting the claims of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds.

(3.) For the sake of convenience, only the facts of W.P.(C) No. 12609, are being stated in brief. The father of the petitioner was working as a 'Fitter II Class with Delhi Jal Board and died in harness while in service on 23rd October, 2001 at Delhi, leaving behind the petitioner and the petitioner's mother. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground vide application dated 15th February, 2002. On 20th September, 2002, the respondent after considering the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, directed the petitioner to appear for Interview on 23rd October, 2002. The petitioner appeared for the said interview and was informed by the respondent vide its letter dated 9th October, 2003 that his application had been considered by the Screening Committee in its meeting and his application was rejected by the Competent Authority on the grounds that "he having own house, no other liability, sufficient terminal dues and pension etc.". Thereafter the petitioner sent some reminders to the respondent but having received no reply to the same, a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 10931/2005 was filed in this court by the petitioner which was allowed vide order dated 1st February, 2006 on the ground that since the petitioner had originally not made a claim for compassionate appointment with reference to his caste, he was given the liberty to approach the respondent afresh with an application with the direction that the same shall also include his claim for consideration as a scheduled caste in quota available for compassionate appointment. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner moved another application for consideration on suitable post on compassionate ground under the Scheduled Caste category on 23rd February, 2006. Accordingly the petitioner appeared for an interview on 9th March, 2006 but by its order dated 10th April, 2006 the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there was no post lying vacant against the reserve quota for compassionate appointment and also for the reason that there were other deserving cases found in more merciful conditions, than that of the petitioner.