DEBDULAL BERA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had applied for appointment on the compassionate ground under the dying-in-harness Rules. According to him, he was subjected to undergo strenuous physical fitness in order to eliminate him from being appointed. Since the appointment was not made, he had moved this Court in Writ Petition No. 21998 (W) of 2000, disposed of on 12th March, 2001 by directing the respondents to communicate the petitioner the exact position of his name in the list prepared by the respondent authority. By the letter dated 17th April, 2001 the respondents had intimated the petitioner about the position disclosing that there is a Central List prepared in the year 1994 in which the name of the petitioner is included along with 1200 wait-listed candidates and that the petitioner had appeared in the selection test but was unsuccessful. It is also communicated that at the present moment, there is a ban on recruitment and as such, petitioner cannot be given appointment but his case would be considered in future. Challenging this order, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that for appointment under the compassionate ground in respect of a group "D" post, no selection can at all be made. According to him, it should be on the basis of priority. Secondly, he contends that the physical test as alleged is not provided in the Rules and that it is only a ruse to eliminate the candidates whom the authority did not like. Therefore, the petitioner should be given appointment forthwith.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that there is no Rules for giving appointment under the compassionate ground. Since a number of persons have been given appointments without the Rules following only the precedents, the name of the petitioner has been included in the Central Wait List for appointment on compassionate ground. He further points out that the petitioners had made the application six years after the death of his father. Therefore, the authority was free to reject his candidature. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contends that there are posts other than porter as disclosed in sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition, for which no physical fitness may be required, such as Chaprashi or peon or like.

(3.) I have heard the submission made the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.