V K SINIMOL Vs. RUBBER BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that she had not been granted appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme framed by the Rubber Board. The petitioner, admittedly, is the daughter of one P.R. Karunakaran, who died on 28.07.2001, while in the service of the respondent. The petitioner's mother, immediately on the death of the father, filed Ext.P2 application before the respondent for consideration of the appointment of the petitioner under the Compassionate Scheme. The application also emphasised the fact that the petitioner is a person, suffering from congenital disability of 75%, which is evidenced at Ext.P1 Certificate.

(2.) The petitioner's name was included by the respondent in the eligible applicants for such appointment. However, indigency factor was not sufficient enough to enable the appointment of the petitioner, is the defense taken by the Rubber Board.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, such a ranking on the basis of indigency is not provided for in Ext.R1(a). Ext.R1(a) also does not provide for a fresh consideration on the basis of subsequent deaths occurred, is the argument. The petitioner, admittedly stood 12th in the ranklist prepared in 2002-2003. The petitioner ought to have been considered at least at the next time, as the 3rd eligible applicant being the 12th in the ranking after the 9 ranked above having been granted such appointment. The learned counsel also relies on the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Rajesh, 2015 2 KerLT 478.