NARESH KUMAR Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing orders dated March 25, 2004 (P-7) and July 20, 2004 (P-11), passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana- respondent No. 2. The order dated March 25, 2004 (P-7) has cancelled the appointment letter/ sanction letter dated January 2,2003 (P-6) under the heading 'Appointment of Sh. Naresh Kumar, Clerk on account of the death of Sh. Chander Bhan, Hindi Teacher, Government Middle School, Sandil (Jind)'. A copy of the letter was sent to the mother of the petitioner, namely Smt. Sheela Devi, wife of the deceased employee Sh.Chander Bhan. The order dated July 20, 2004 (P-11) has again been passed by the Director- respondent No. 2 to justify the cancellation by placing reliance on Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependent of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, (for brevity '2003 Rules').

(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that the father of the petitioner- Chander Bhan was working as Hindi Teacher in the respondent Department. On October 9, 2001, he died while in harness. On November 15, 2001, the mother of the petitioner sent an application to the respondents with all required documents for his appointment as Clerk in the Education Department under the Ex-gratia appointment policy dated May 8, 1995 (P-4). All the necessary details of the petitioner that he was born on May 11, 1970 and held adequate qualification were disclosed. The petitioner is matric from the Board of School Education Haryana in Ist Division (March, 1986), and he has acquired one year Hindi Stenography Course from I.T.I., Kaithal (July, 1992) alongwith the qualification of Prabhakar from Panjab University in second division (May, 1996). True copies of the aforementioned certificates have been attached as annexures P-1 to P-3. The Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, accorded sanction to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Clerk vide order dated January 2, 2003 and placed reliance on the Ex-gratia compassionate appointment policy dated May 8, 1995. The aforementioned order reads as under:

(3.) It is appropriate to mention that a perusal of endorsement at Sr. No. 2 would show that a copy of the order was sent to the mother of the petitioner. It is further appropriate to mention that on January 15, 2003, nine other persons similar situated to the petitioner were given appointment as officiating Clerk as is evident from a perusal of order annexure P-9. It has been pointed out that Dharamvir son of Late Sh. Ram Pal at Sr. No. 8 was also more than 25 years of age on the date of his appointment. However, respondent No. 2 has passed an order dated March 25, 2004 (P-7) withdrawing the sanction accorded to the appointment in favour of the petitioner under the Ex-gratia scheme dated May 8, 1995. A supplementary order has also been passed later on July 20, 2004 (P-11). In both the orders, reliance has been placed on 2003 Rules which came into force from March 4,2003. It has been observed that according to the Rules, the petitioner had attained the age of 25 years and was not eligible to be given appointment. The petitioner was only asked to exercise option for financial assistance of Rs. 2.5 lacs. Feeling aggrieved, he has approach this Court.