SURESH MITLA Vs. STATE OF J&K & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed praying to quash order dated 25.06.2003 rejecting the request of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment as Sub-Inspector in J&K Police (Executive) under the provisions of SRO 43 of 1994, on the same analogy as has been adopted in the case of respondent No. 4, w.e.f. the date respondent No. 4 has been appointed with all other consequential benefits.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that father of the petitioner and father of respondent No. 4. were working as Inspectors in Police Department. Both of them have died in harness while serving in Vigilance Organization between the gap of 12 days. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 after the death in harness of their respective fathers, applied for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994, as they were qualified and only eligible persons in their respective families. The petitioner has passed B.Sc. Part-I, whereas the 4th respondent has passed 12th standard. The Home Department recommended the case of both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 for compassionate appointment as Assistant Sub-Inspector by relaxing the Rules, however, the relaxation was granted by the General Administration Department in favour of respondent No. 4 and he was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, his application was kept pending without any justifiable reason and he filed writ petition SWP No. 1042/2002 and this Court by order dated 23.08.2002 directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointments within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of that order. The direction having not been complied with, the petitioner filed contempt petition bearing COA No. 25/2003 and during pendency of the contempt petition, the impugned order dated 25.06.2003 was passed by stating that petitioner was offered the post of constable, based on his qualification which he declined. The 4th respondent was given the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector by relaxing the qualification. It is also stated in the order that the relaxation can be granted on discretionary basis and the petitioner cannot claim it as a matter of right, as it was given to 4th respondent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment of Honourable the Supreme Court reported in 2002 (9) SCC 445 (Surya Kant Kadam Vs. State of Karnataka) regarding disparity on compassionate grounds. In paragraph 2 of the said judgment it is held thus: