OM PRAKASH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is arising out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 29th November, 2010 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69341 of 2010 (Om Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. and others).

(2.) THE matter relates to compassionate appointment. THE appellant's case is that his father was a Head Master in Primary School, Bampur, Manda, District Allahabad who died in harness on 19th April, 1992. THE application for compassionate appointment was made by the appellant-writ petitioner after attaining majority on 17th November, 2000. Several proceedings were initiated before the writ Court for due consideration of the cause, which was done and the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner was rejected. Learned Single Judge also dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order holding a view that the compassionate appointment is an exception and further following several Supreme Court judgements held that unreasonable delay in making the claim for compassionate appointment would defeat the very object of the same. In a Supreme Court judgement in Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, 2000 (7) SCC 192, it has been held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and cannot be utilized as a reservation of vacancy till such time that the claimant becomes major and eligible for appointment.

(3.) WE have no quarrel with the proposition that when the relevant rule gives the scope of relaxation or dispensation of the period of five years, it cannot be rejected merely on the basis of the fact that the application was beyond the prescribed time. Similarly, each and every case has its own ground of acceptance or rejection. Facts vary from case to case. In the instant case, save and except the ground that the appellant-writ petitioner was not in a position to make the application in time since he was minor, no other ground is available from the order of the authority. Though there is a format/proforma for making application beyond the period giving details of landed properties, bank accounts and other relevant materials and though the appellant-writ petitioner has said that he has made the application but from the annexure we find that proforma is totally unfilled. No cause of any continuance of suffering or hardship has been indicated. In such circumstances, the rejection as made by the authority seems to be valid. Moreover, the widow of the deceased, even having no proper qualification, had not made any application before the authority concerned for her appointment even in the lowest grade to meet the immediate need of the family. Therefore, the grounds, which have been taken by the appellant herein, are vague in nature. Had it been the case of non-consideration of cause or of rejection without basis, the appellate Court would have interfered with it by sitting in a Court of Appeal, arising out of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But we cannot go into the reason of the reasonableness of rejection like regular Appellate Court.