JAGROOP SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dispute in this writ petition relates to appointment of Petitioner on compassionate grounds. The Respondents while considering the case of Petitioner and one Shri Mohd Aslam, who is stated to be similarly situated with him, have accepted the plea of said Mohd Aslam for appointment on compassionate grounds, whereas in case of Petitioner it was rejected. In order to resolve the controversy involved in this writ petition, following facts are required to be noted.

(2.) The Petitioner came to be appointed as Class IV employee in the Excise Department on 28.12.1998. The appointment order, however, does not disclose the nature of appointment. The Petitioner has placed on record, list of employees, who have been appointed on the said date.List reflects the names of persons who have been appointed on compassionate grounds. It reveals from the record that appointment of class IV employees made in the Excise Department became subject matter of challenge in various writ petitions in this Court which were subsequently quashed.

(3.) In pursuance to the direction issued by this Court, the Petitioner was also ousted, even though, it is contended by him that he was appointed on compassionate grounds. Number of employees who were similarly situated with the Petitioner filed writ petitions in this Court seeking directions that order of terminating the services of illegally appointed Excise Guards and orderlies is not applicable to the persons who have been legally appointed including the appointments made on compassionate grounds. It was not a backdoor appointment.