VIRENDRASINH JAVANSINH MAKWANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner to a Class III or Class IV post on compassionate ground, as the father of the petitioner, Shri Javansinh L. Parmar, serving under respondent no. 4, expired on 11/04/1980, when he was in service.

(2.) Though the first application which was submitted by the petitioner to the concerned authority for claiming appointment on compassionate ground is not on record, it appears that somewhere in 1999 the petitioner made first effort to get an appointment on compassionate ground. As the application submitted by the petitioner to respondent no. 4 was not entertained, the petitioner had approached respondent no. 2 - the Commissioner of Schools with a grievance that his application for being appointed to a Class III or Class IV post on compassionate ground was not being looked into properly by respondent no. 4. Respondent no. 2 thereupon asked respondent no. 3, the District Education Officer, as to why the application given by the petitioner was not being entertained. It appears that respondent no. 3 thereafter made inquiries and ultimately it was found that the application submitted by the petitioner could not be entertained for the reason that the father of the petitioner, Late Shri Javansing L. Parmar, had expired on 11/04/1980 whereas the policy with regard to giving appointment on compassionate ground came into force under Government Resolution dated 4/07/1988 and, therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner was not entertained. It is also relevant to note that there was no vacancy in the cadre of peon at the relevant time in the school managed by respondent no. 4 where the father of the petitioner was working. This was an additional reason for not entertaining the petitioner's application.

(3.) The petitioner has been aggrieved by the communication dated 8/11/2001 addressed to respondent no. 4 by respondent no. 3, whereby respondent no. 4 was informed that the application submitted by the petitioner could not be entertained for the aforestated reason.