ANKIT Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The predecessor-in-interest, of the petitioner, namely one Surender Kumar, as, divulged by his death certificate, appended with the writ petition, as, Annexure A-1, died on 20.3.2006. At the afore phase, he was performing duties, as, a Forest Guard, under, the respondents. Consequently, since in contemporaneity, visa-vis, the occurrence of demise, of his predecessor-ininterest, the petitioner was a minor, thereupon, upon his attaining majority, in the year 2011, he applied, for compassionate appointment, in consonance with, the then prevalent apposite scheme, hence formulated by the respondents. However, the afore application remained not completely processed, rather, it became returned, through Annexure A-5, to the writ petitioner, for the latter, overcoming the recited therein shortcomings.

(2.) The writ petitioner, has uncontrovertedly failed to remove all the shortcomings, in his application, as became asked, for, to be removed, through Annexure A-5. However, yet, the writ petitioner claims, for, the issuance of a mandamus, upon, the respondent(s), for the latter(s), making his appointment on compassionate ground(s).

(3.) The legality, of, issuance of the espoused mandamus, upon, the respondents, enjoins an allusion being made, to, the apposite policy, as became formulated by the respondents. The relevant portion(s) thereof, are, extracted hereinafter:-