SAVITRI DEVI Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Savitri Devi through present petition filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order dated June 29, 1998 vide which appointment given to her on July 8, 1997 has been withdrawn.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that her father, who was employed on the post of Gardener in the respondent-University, died in May, 1996. THEreafter, she submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. On the respondent-University requiring her to submit an affidavit, she duly swore the same before an Executive Magistrate, Annexure P-2, wherein she mentioned that she is real daughter of Ram Raj, who expired on May 21, 1996 leaving her as his legal heir and that her family income from all sources was Rs. 6000/- per annum. Upon consideration of the entire matter, petitioner was offered the post of Peon under ex-gratia Rules vide appointment letter dated July 8, 1997. She had not worked for more than eight months when she received a show cause notice as to why the appointment given to her be not withdrawn. On receipt of show cause notice, she requested the respondent-University to supply her relevant documents and after some correspondence, she was supplied the documents that she had demanded. THEreafter, she submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice stating therein that she had made no false representation and right from her marriage, she along with her husband and children had been staying with her father and even the appointment letter was received by her at the address of her father. Despite that, offer of appointment given to the petitioner was withdrawn vide impugned order, referred to above.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the pleadings made in the petition and accompanying documents. WE, however, find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel, noted above. It is well made out from show cause notice, Annexure P-4 dated March 23, 1998 that Ram Raj, father of the petitioner had left behind no family member dependent upon him and that the petitioner was a married daughter of said Ram Raj. It is also mentioned that she did not come within the ambit of dependent family member and, therefore, appointment given to the petitioner under ex-gratia rules was legal and against the Haryana Government instruction and University Rules. Nothing at all has been brought on record from where it may be spelled out that petitioner, who was married and having children, could possibly be dependent upon her father. In the affidavit given by her, Annexure P-2 also she nowhere stated that she was dependent upon her father or that her husband was not doing anything and she along with her children was being brought up and looked after by her father. Appointment given to the petitioner was clearly against the rules governing the field and after giving a proper show cause notice to the petitioner and hearing her, same has been withdrawn.