RAJINDER KUMAR KHERA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only quests that has been mooted out in this writ is as to whether Mr. Rajinder Kumar Khera in wake of the facts and circumstances of this case should have been appointed to the post of Inspector Cooperative Societies on compassionate basis or on the past of Sub Inspector. The basic contention in support of the petitioner is that even though appointment on compassionate grounds is in discretion of the Government, the said discretion with regard to persons of equally situate has to be applied universally. In other words, the Government cannot in the grab of this discretion differentiate persons situated similarly and give higher appointment to their chosen favourites and lower appointments to these who are unable to exercise influence in the corridors of power. The question noted above emanates from the admitted facts enumerated hereinafter.

(2.) THE father of the petitioner, late Shri Barkat Ram Khera who was holding the post of Inspector in the department of Cooperative Societies expired on 16th of December, 1989 while he was on duly when he was posted as Inspector Coop. Marketing Society Charkhi Dadri Vide instructions issued by the Government on 22nd of December, 1970, one member of the deceased family who dies while in service has to be considered for absorption in Government service. The aforesaid instructions have been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. The instructions were later modified vide Government letter dated 13th of July, 1971. The same have been annexed with the written statement as Annexure R-l. The petitioner passed his B. A. Examination with Mathematics and Economics and was fully qualified for the post of Inspector. The mother of the petitioner thus, applied that her son should be appointed as Inspector. The said representation was made through Audit Officer, Coop. Societies, Bhiwani. The said officer recommended the case of the petitioner for the post of Inspector as he was fully eligible in all respects. The said recommendation was sent to Registrar, Coop. Societies, Haryana, respondent No. 2 herein. It is the case of the petitioner that without considering qualifications of the petitioner respondent No. 2 recommended the case of the petitioner that without considering qualifications of the petitioner respondent No. 2 recommended the case of the petitioner to the Chief Secretary for the post of Sub Inspector instead of Inspector. The mother of the petitioner met the Registrar, Co-operative Societies and requested that her son who was eligible for the post of Inspector be recommended for the post of Inspector. Her entreaties made to respondent No. 2, however, brought no tangible results. She then reiterated her request to the Chief Secretary vide her representation dated 17th of October, 1990. (Annexure P-2 ). This was followed by number of representations thereafter. Since, however, the family was hard pressed, petitioner joined his services on the post of Sub Inspector and being convinced that step-motherly treatment was meted out to him, filed the present petition for the relief indicated above.

(3.) AS mentioned above, the only question that, thus, needs determination is as to whether, even though, it be an ex-gratia scheme the case can discriminately apply between person similarly situate. 5. It is by now settled proposition of law that the discretion vested in the Government is subject to constitutional and public limitations. The action of the Government must be in conformity with some principle which may test to reason and relevance. Way back in 1979 Apex Court in Ramana v. I. A. Authority of India, A. I. R. 1979 Supreme Court 1628, after relying upon number of earlier judgments held :