MUKESH KUMAR JATAV Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner seeks to challenge the communication dated 24/1/2014 and 13/2/2014 (Annexure P/1 and P/2) by which the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been regretted.

(2.) FACTS necessary for the disposal of this petition are to the effect that petitioner's father, namely, Kamlesh Jatav was serving the respondents as an Assistant Teacher and had died on 17/4/2009, during service, leaving behind petitioner only, as his wife Smt. Seeta had died in the year 1996. On complaint filed by the petitioner against the appointment as Assistant Teacher provided to one Smt. Batasiya on compassionate ground, who styled herself as widow of Late Shri Kamlesh Jatav (father of the petitioner), vide order dated 11/11/2011 (Annexure P/8) documents/mark -sheets submitted by Smt. Batasiya were found to be forged and appointment aforesaid was cancelled.

(3.) HAVING perused the impugned orders and policy referred by the counsel, this Court is of the view that respondents have not committed any illegality having regretted the claim of petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground vide Annexure P/1. As a matter of fact, appointment on compassionate ground is provided only to tied over the financial crisis due to death of the bread earner in harness. In this case, Late Shri Kamlesh Jatav had died on 17/4/2009. Petitioner qualified High School Examination in the year 2011. He is the sole person left behind by Late Shri Kailash Jatav. Admittedly, petitioner does not possess the teachers training qualification and, therefore, not eligible for appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak. Being son of a Shiksha Karmi he could have only been offered the appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak, hence, rejection for want of qualification cannot be said to be illegal. Besides, as there is no provision for providing compassionate appointment as a Peon to the dependent of a deceased -Shiksha Karmi, as per the directives of the Government, no fault can be found with the rejection of the claim vide Annexure P/2. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, writ petition sans merits is hereby dismissed.