ASHUTOSH PIPPAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Teacher and he died in harness on 3/5/2009 leaving behind his family in a tight situation. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground and since there was no vacancy of Assistant Grade-III, therefore, the petitioner approached the Collector for redressal of his grievance and the Collector, Morena after considering the application of the petitioner wrote a letter dated 3/3/2010 to the District Education Officer, Morena and called for his consent. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Deputy Director of Education for taking action on the letter written by the Collector and he was informed that there is no vacancy of Assistant Grade-III in the office of Deputy Director, Education. It is submitted that the contention of the Deputy Director was incorrect because an advertisement was issued for filling up the vacancies of Assistant Grade-III by direct recruitment. As the petitioner was made to run from pillar to post, therefore, he filed a writ petition No.7423/2010 before this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 9/12/2010 with a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner. It is submitted that against the wishes of the petitioner, respondents are pressurizing him to give his consent contrary to the policy opting for Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III, whereas the petitioner is entitled for the post of Assistant Grade-III.

(3.) Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that since no post of Assistant Grade-III was available in the office of respondent no.4, i.e. District Education Officer, therefore, it was sent to the Joint Director of Education for consideration. Since no vacant post of Assistant Grade-III was available in the office of Joint Director, Education, Gwalior, therefore, the application was sent to the Commissioner, Public Instructions, Bhopal for further action. The respondent no.2-Commissioner, Public Instructions, Bhopal by letter dated 1/12/2010 directed the respondents to decide the application as per Clause 10.1 and 10.7 of the Policy dated 18/8/2008. Clause 9.4 of the policy provides to make an attempt to grant compassionate appointment in the same department where the deceased employee was working and in case of non-availability of the vacant post, then the case can be referred to the head of the department. After ascertaining that no vacant post is available in other districts of the State, then the head of the department shall send it to the Collector of the district concerned under Clause 9.8 of the policy. Thus, from this provision it is clear that the respondent no.4 is not competent to send the application of the petitioner directly to the Collector when the head of the department has directed to decide the application under Clause 10.1 and 10.7 of the policy. Since the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III was available in the department, therefore, the petitioner was asked to submit his option by letter dated 20/12/2010 and again by letter dated 28/2/2011 the petitioner was asked to submit his option for acceptance of appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III or to accept five years' pay and allowances lastly drawn by deceased employee, but in spite of that the petitioner has not submitted his option and, hence, as provided under Clause 10.7 the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by order dated 28/6/2011.