JASWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of order dtd. 23/4/2015 (Annexure P-8), passed by respondent No.2, whereby, the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment to the post of Sewadar has been rejected.

(2.) Contends that the petitioner's father, working as Head Constable in the respondent-Department, died in harness on 20/1/2004. The petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment and his name was enlisted along with others vide letter dtd. 7/2/2005. A priority list was issued vide letter dtd. 7/2/2005 (Annexure P-1) and the name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No.12. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on 31/10/2007 (Annexure P-2) for the post of Constable on the ground that he was declared unfit by the Medical Board, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt. The petitioner again submitted an application for compassionate appointment. The application was duly considered by the respondentDepartment. He also submitted his detailed representation dtd. 8/6/2014 (Annexure P-4/A) narrating therein about his conviction under Sec. 323 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The claim of the petitioner was finally approved and police verification was sought from the office of the SSP, Faridkot. The necessary report was submitted by the local police (Annexure P-6). The petitioner was then asked to submit his original testimonials/educational qualification certificates vide letter dtd. 16/1/2015 (Annexure P-7). The authority vide letter dtd. 30/1/2015 also directed the petitioner to undergo medical examination from Civil Surgeon, Faridkot (Annexure P-7/A). The original testimonials were submitted by the petitioner and he also underwent medical examination on 6/2/2015. However, vide order dtd. 23/4/2015 (Annexure P-8), the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Sewadar (Class IV) on compassionate basis was rejected on the ground of conviction under Ss. 324 and 323 read with Sec. 34 IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel states that the rejection of claim of the petitioner on the ground of conviction is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the petitioner was released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act (for short, 'the Act'). He refers to Sec. 12 of the Act which provides that the conviction and consequent release on probation is not a disqualification for employment or for continuation of employment.