ANAMIKA RANI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAV JUDGMENT Date: 05 -06 -2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:

(2.) IN the background of the aforementioned fact, it has been emphasized that the impugned order passed on 22.08.2008 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, on a day on which the petitioner had definitely become major, would not only be against the spirit of the Government policy of appointment dated 05.10.1991 but would also defeat the very purpose of compassionate appointment. Reliance in this regard has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1999(1) PLJR 491 as also an unreported judgment of this Court dated 27.08.2013 in CWJC No. 15320 of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also sought support to his submission by referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195.

(3.) IN the considered opinion of this Court, this writ petition must fail only on account of delay. As noted above, the mother of the petitoenr had died on 17.10.1994 and this writ petition has been filed for a direction for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground after more than 19 years of her death on 27.08.2013. Thus, this delay of 19 years has not at all been explained by the petitioner, itself would be sufficient to dismiss this writ petition. There is yet another aspect which would disentitle the petitioner to claim relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the petitioner in this case has assailed an order dated 22.08.2008 by filing this writ petition on 27.08.2013. This delay of five years in assailing the order has also nowhere been explained and, therefore, this delay of five years would itself become fatal. Let it be also noted that the order dated 22.08.2008 in fact is not an order of refusal of compassionate appointment of the petitioner rather it is a communication by the D.S.E, Patna to the petitioner in response of her application dated 29.07.2008 seeking certain information under Right to Information Act. In that communication, when the petitioner had wanted to know as to why her appointment on compassionate ground in terms of her application filed in the month of September, 2008, had not been allowed, on answer was given by the D.S.E , Patna was that as the petitioner was minor aged about 11 years (in the year 1998) and she was only a student of class five, her appointment on compassionate ground could not be made because being a major was the condition precedent for appointment in Government service. This communication order dated 22.08.2008 obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act therefore, cannot be said to be the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment inasmuch as her such application filed in the year 1998 had already stood automatically rejected in terms of the requirement of Government policy. As a matter of fact, the petitioner herself did not raise any issue for next ten years between 1998 to 2008 and had made first communication to the D.S.E. on 29.07.2008 by filing an application under the Right to Information Act seeking the reason for refusal of appointment on compassionate ground and thereafter having slept over the same for another five years i.e. from 22.08.2008 to 27.08.2013, has filed this writ petition. It, therefore, becomes very clear that the petitioner has been virtually whipping a dead horse inasmuch as she had not claimed her appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the Government policy dated 05.10.1991 till 2008 becauise she was neither eligible in terms of her age nor had the qualification. The Government policy dated 5.10.1991 however requires a person in order to be eligible, to be not only major but also have qualification for the post in question till the last date of filing of the application i.e. within a period of five years of death of the concerned Government servant dying in harness.