INDRAPALSINH P CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.B.P.Tanna, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Ms.Manisha Lavkumar, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) In the present Special Civil Application, wherein, notice has been issued making it returnable on 24th February, 1993 by order dated 11th February, 1993 and at the same time, by way of interim order, it was also directed that One post of Junior Clerk shall be kept vacant under respondent No.3, till then. Subsequently, RULE was issued by this Court making it returnable on 29th March, 1993 and earlier interim relief was directed to continue by order dated 24th February, 1993.

(3.) The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :- The petitioner's father worked for more than 22 years under Shri Madhyamik Shala, Sanjeli, which was run by the respondent No.3. The father of the petitioner died due to cancer on 18th September, 1985. The petitioner who had passed SSC and studying in T.Y.BA at that time and the petitioner being the elder son of the deceased, applied for the post of Junior Clerk on compassionate ground by filling up necessary form. The petitioner relied upon Resolution No.3 dated 22nd December, 1988 passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the it was unanimously accepted the genuine request of the petitioner and recommended his case for compassionate appointment. By letter dated 23rd November, 1990 the Head Master of Shri Madhyamik Shala, Sanjeli requested the respondent No.4 to recommend the case of the petitioner to respondent No.2 and to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner hopefully waited for a favourable compassionate appointment. However, all of sudden, on 29th January, 1992 the petitioner received communication interalia stating that his father died on 18th September, 1985 and dependent of such employee who died on or after 4th July, 1988 is only entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment and therefore, he is not entitled to benefit of compassionate appointment. According to the petitioner, the said decision which has been taken by the respondents on account of wrong interpretation of resolution which is not permissible.