SUKHDEV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition challenging the orders Annexure P-10 dated 13.3.2001, Annexure P-12 dated 13.6.2001 and also the Annexure P-13 dated 18.6.2001.

(2.) EARLIER , the petitioner was working as Safai Daroga. Thereafter, his post was changed and he was posted as Moharrair vide resolution dated 26.4.1995 of the Municipal Council. A copy of the order has been filed on 15.5.1995. In the meanwhile, the father of the petitioner was died. Hence, in pursuance to the resolution of the Municipal council dated 26.4.1995, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Revenue Inspector. Thereafter, he submitted an application to the Municipal Council that he be appointed on the post of Revenue Inspector looking to the qualifications and the Municipal Council vide resolution dated 9.10.2000 accepted the request of the petitioner appointing him as Revenue Inspector, Municipal Council. That resolution has been challenged by the respondent No. 4 before the Collector and the Collector vide order dated 18.6.2001 set aside the resolution of the Municipal Council dated 9.10.2000 on the ground that the petitioner was already appointed as Assistant Revenue Inspector on compassionate basis. Hence, he cannot be appointed as Revenue Inspector on compassionate basis. It has further been held by the authority that the post on which the petitioner ws appointed as Revenue Inspector as per resolution was reserved and the respondent No. 4 belongs to reserved category. Hence, his chances for promotion would be affected.

(3.) IN my opinion, the object of the compassionate appointment is to give some relief to the family members of the deceased employees who were out of employment. In the present case, it appears that the petitioner was already in employment. Hence, there was no question for his compassionate appointment and also as per the order of the Collector, the post of Revenue Inspector for which the Municipal Council passed a resolution with regard to appointment of the petitioner was reserved for a reserved category candidate. Hence, certainly, the resolution passed by the Municipal Council is contrary to law. Hence, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. None for petitioner; Brijesh Sharma, Government Advocate for State;