RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims compassionate appointment from the State for the reason that his father was became a victim of terrorism in the dark days of Punjab. His father was killed in 1987 and the matter was investigated on the criminal side in Police Station Bhikhiwind in District Tarn Taran. The petitioner's mother worked with Government as a Staff Nurse. The petitioner was not then a year old when his father passed away.

(2.) By the time, the petitioner had obtained the Diploma in Radiography and completed his educational career in 2009. He laid a claim for a compassionate appointment as a dependant of a terrorist victim. On his request for compassionate appointment, the petitioner was called for interview in November 2010 but nothing came of it. Thereafter, he has been running from pillar to post claiming a suitable job. Uncertain about the status of his case, he applied for information under the RTI Act in March 2014 and was informed that his case has been forwarded to the District Selection Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran, for processing. He was informed that his case for compassionate appointment has been considered and rejected on November 29, 2010 on the ground that his mother was in Government service and he was dependent on her. She died after his case was rejected. He relies on a circular of the Punjab Government dated May 25, 1990 claiming priority in category No.1 of the policy instructions for appointment to Government service in Class-III & IV which grants benefit of compassionate appointments to victims of terrorist violence and victims of November 1984 riots. He belongs to the former category. The Punjab Government has from time to time issued policy instructions on May 25, 1990 and subsequent instructions which were issued on June 20, 2001, June 18, 2002 and then on July 09, 2008. His trump card is an Identity Card issued by the District Administration certifying that he is a member of terrorist victim family issued to his late mother Shanti Devi.

(3.) On his own showing, the petitioner was about 24 years of age when his case for compassionate appointment was rejected on November 29, 2010. There is no averment in the body of the writ petition or in any document filed with the writ petition that he was not communicated the rejection order dated November 29, 2010 all this while. All that he says is that on a request under RTI made on March 20, 2014 he was informed of the rejection of his request. In the absence of any specific averment in the writ petition that he was not served or informed of the passing of the rejection order dated November 29, 2010 which was adverse to him so that he could have safe guarded his interest and act within the limitations to to take recourse to law. The limitation for calling in question the impugned order had run out on the date of filing the present petition on September 30, 2014 which has been listed for motion hearing today. Even if a suit was brought challenging the impugned order dated November 29, 2010 it would have been barred by limitation. In a case where the limitation for bringing suit has run out it would be proper for the writ court to dismiss the petition even though its jurisdiction suffers no bar of limitation and while entertaining petitions deals with issues of delay and laches and whether they may disentitle a person to relief.