SARAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS of the case are these. The father of the petitioner, Late S. Iqbal Singh was a Deputy Superintendent of Police and died in harness. After the death of his father petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The Government appointed him Head Constable in the Police Department by order dated 1.8.1995. However petitioner was not satisfied with this offer because according to him respondents have acted arbitrarily in the matter of compassionate appointments in as mush as while respondents 4 and 5 were appointed Inspectors, respondent No.6 was appointed Assistant Sub -Inspector, although they were also similarly placed with the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he possesses similar qualifications as were possessed by respondents 4 and 6 at the time of their appointment. There was thus no justification for appointing him as Head Constable and is a discrimination between the similarly situated persons thereby offending Article 14 of the constitution. He therefore, claims that respondents be directed to appoint him atleast Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police if it is not permissible to adjust him on any higher post.

(2.) IN the objections filed on behalf of official respondents it is stated that petitioner is not similarly situated with the private respondents because his father died a natural death whereas those of private respondents were killed while fighting militancy in Kashmir.

(3.) MR . Singh appearing for the petitioner argued that respondents have by offering the post of Head Constable humiliated the petitioner so that he does not join the post. The offer according to him is against the status of the post held by his father at the time of his death. The family background of the petitioner it is argued does not permit him to accept the offer because his mother, who also died in a bus accident, was a teacher and he is expected to maintain the same level of standard in the family. He also pointed out that the government cannot discriminate in the matter of compassionate appointments between similarly situated persons. However according to him it is a worsed case of discrimination where private respondents have been appointed on higher post even though at the time of death their father s were also holding the same position as the father of the petitioner.