LAWS(MPH)-2019-1-208

RAMHET KUSHWAH Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On January 22, 2019
Ramhet Kushwah Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 14/7/2016, by which the application for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of present petition in short are that the father of the petitioner had died in harness on 11/6/2002. The petitioner attained the age of majority on 1/2/2009. He passed his Higher Secondary Examination on 26/5/2010. He applied for appointment on compassionate ground which was rejected on the premise that as period of seven years has already passed after the death of the father of the petitioner, therefore, the candidature of the petitioner cannot be considered in the light of the policy of the State Government. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, filed a writ petition No.8682/2012, which was decided by this Court by order dated 10/12/2012 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as per the policy of the State Government dated 13/1/2011. Unfortunately instead of following the directions given by this Court, the respondents once again passed the same order assigning the same reasons/justifications in the order dated 11/2/2013. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11/2/2013, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as writ petition No.6252/2013 and was finally disposed of by order dated 6/10/2015 and the order dated 11/2/2013 was quashed with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's subsequent application for compassionate appointment afresh on merits in the light of the policy dated 13/1/2011.

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that instead of following the order dated 10/12/2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8682/2012 and order dated 6/10/2015 passed in writ petition No.6252/2013, the respondents have once again passed the similar order thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. It is further submitted that the respondents have awarded appointment on compassionate ground to one Kuldeep Meena, whose case is identical to that of the present petitioner, but the respondents have deliberately discriminated the petitioner by denying him the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground.