DEVNURARI RAHULKUMAR ASHOKBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, interalia, with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 27.01.2009, passed by respondent No.2District Superintendent of Police, Surendranagar, whereby the application of the petitioner for the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was serving on the post of Constable under the respondentDepartment. He passed away while in harness. The deceased employee left behind him his wife, being the mother of the petitioner and two daughters, one of whom is elder to the petitioner. At the time of his father's death, the petitioner was a minor. The mother of the petitioner made an application on 09.09.1999 to respondent No.2, stating that she has a son and two daughters and as the son (the petitioner) is a minor, he may be considered for the grant of compassionate appointment after he attains the age of majority. The date of birth of the petitioner being 06.09.1989, he attained majority on 06.09.2007. On 17.09.2007, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.3, requesting for the grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that he had now attained the age of majority. There was no response to this application, therefore, again on 08.11.2007, the petitioner addressed another representation to respondent No.2. On 12.03.2008, the respondents addressed a letter to the petitioner asking him to enclose the educational certificates of his mother and stating that if she is not educated, his application would be considered. According to the respondents, there was no reply from the petitioner to this communication, therefore, on 24.07.2008, the petitioner was informed to appear for a medical examination. The petitioner was got medically examined. As stated in the certificate to this effect given by the Civil Surgeon dated 06.08.2008, he was found physically fit for employment. However, the case of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment was rejected by the impugned order dated 27.01.2009, on several grounds. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Mr.Y.J.Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the father of the petitioner passed away on 22.08.1999. Without losing any time, the mother of the petitioner made an application on 09.09.1999, to the effect that the petitioner was a minor at that point of time and the respondents ought to give him appointment on compassionate grounds as and when he attains the age of majority. It is submitted that in the impugned order the first reason for rejection is that the mother of the petitioner did not make the application within time. The application was made on 09.09.1999, therefore, there is no delay in making the application and this ground for the rejection of the application is not correct.