BINDHU MANOHARAN Vs. THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by denial of compassionate appointment to the petitioner, consequent to the death of her husband, while serving as a Sub Inspector in the Central Reserve Police Force. The petitioner contends that immediately after her husband's untimely death on 3.8.2011, an application for compassionate appointment was obtained by the officers of the CRPF. Pursuant to submission of the application, the petitioner was called to the CRPF Group Centre at Pallipuram and instructed about the requirements and formalities to be complied with in the matter of compassionate appointment. Though, the petitioner opted for the post of Constable(Peon) or Nursing Assistant, her claim was not considered on the ground that no vacancy was available in the posts for which the petitioner had opted. It is submitted by the petitioner that thereafter nothing was heard from the officials of the CRPF and therefore, the petitioner started submitting representations from the year 2015. While so, as instructed by the 5th respondent, petitioner submitted the requisite proforma along with requests on 10.11.2015, as evidenced by Ext P2. By Ext P4 communication, the petitioner was required to express her willingness or unwillingness to be appointed in the rank of Constable/General Duty(Mahila). By Ext P6, the petitioner expressed her willingness. Much later, by Ext P10 communication dated 28.8.2016 the petitioner was informed that since her date of birth is 10.4.1974 it was not possible to recruit her to the CRPF, as she had crossed the maximum age limit of 40 years. The petitioner was also informed that her son or daughter, whoever is qualified, can submit application for recruitment to the CRPF on compassionate grounds. Though, after receipt of Ext P10, the petitioner submitted series of representations, the respondents vide Ext P15 reiterated its stand that the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, since she had crossed 40 years and that in case her son or daughter is qualified, he or she can submit application for recruitment in the CRPF. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks to quash Exts P10 and P15 by the issue of writ of certiorari and consequential reliefs.

(2.) In the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is pointed out that a complete set of proforma for compassionate appointment was sent to the petitioner on the same day of her husband's death (3.8.2011). The application and proforma submitted by the petitioner was found to be defective and hence returned. Thereafter, while submitting her application the petitioner categorically stated that she was unwilling to join the posts of Constable/General Duty/Bugler, CT (Cook, W/C, W/M, S/K) in CRPF and was willing to join only for the post of Head Constable (Min.). The petitioner submitted another application, in which she requested for compassionate appointment in the post of Peon/Nursing Assistant. After consideration of her application, Ext R4(e) communication was issued to the petitioner informing her that at present posts of Peon or Nursing Assistant was not available in the Force, for effecting appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner was also informed that she can express her willingness or unwillingness as to whether she was willing to join the Force in the rank of CT/GD(Mahila). It was thereafter, that Exts P5 and P6 were submitted by the petitioner expressing her willingness to be appointed in the rank of CT/GD(Mahila). It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that Ext P5 application was considered by the higher authorities and after due deliberation, Ext P10 communication was issued informing the petitioner that her request for compassionate appointment could not be considered since she had crossed the maximum age limit of 40 years. It is submitted that as per Rule 11 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 the age limit prescribed for Head Constable, Naiks, and Constables is not less than 18 and not more than 23 years. Ext R4(f) provides for relaxation of age limit in the case of widows. But even under Ext R4(f) the maximum age limit prescribed for widows is 40 years. In the light of this clear stipulation, the petitioner was not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds, which fact was intimated to her vide Exts P10 and P15.

(3.) When the Writ Petition was taken up for admission, this court had issued an interim direction to the respondents to make necessary arrangements to enable the petitioner to provisionally participate in the special drive, pursuant to Ext P8, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Based on the interim direction, petitioner had participated in the assessment test for the post of Constable (Peon)/Daftry conducted on 19.12.2016 and 20.12.2016. It is informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that though the petitioner qualified in the physical fitness test, she failed in the written test and therefore, the petitioner had rendered herself ineligible for compassionate appointment.