HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned decision dated 9th May,2008 of respondent No. 2, rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment for the post of Junior Clerk.

(2.) IT is the case on behalf of the petitioner that father of the petitioner was serving as Assistant Teacher in Primary School at Village: Tarsani situated at Zagadia, District: Bharuch, who died on 2nd April,2005 while in-service. The petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground for the post of Junior Clerk vide application dated 11th April,2005. His application was been processed by the concerned respondent authority. However, vide impugned communication dated 9th May,2008, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the concerned respondent considering the income criteria relying upon Government Resolution dated 29th March,2007. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) MR. K. G. PANDIT, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that impugned decision of respondent authority rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground relying upon the Government Resolution dated 29th March,2007 is absolutely illegal and contrary to the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. It is further submitted that the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was required to be considered by the concerned respondent authority relying upon the Government Resolution for compassionate appointment prevailing at the time when the petitioner submitted the application i. e. 11th April,2005. It is further submitted that as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in catena of decisions while considering the appointment on compassionate ground, the respondent authority is required to consider the policy / resolution on compassionate appointment prevailing at the time when the application was submitted. Mr. K. G. Pandit, leaned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court dated 9th March,2009 passed in Special Civil Application No. 701 of 2009 and it is requested to allow the present petition by directing the respondent to take appropriate decision in accordance with law and on merits considering the Government Resolution / policy of the State Government on compassionate appointment relying upon Government Resolution, which was prevailing at the time when the petitioner submitted the application for compassionate appointment.