RIAZ AHMED Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that vide order dated 26.11.1995 issued by respondent-2, he was appointed as class-IV employee in terms of SRO 43/94 on compassionate ground. However, similarly placed persons namely, Miss Rajni Bala Gupta, Anita Sharma and Sandeep Kumar were appointed as Laboratory Assistants in District Poonch. Petitioner filed SWP No. 1219/97 in which this Court on 15.7.1996 directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for the post of Lab. Asstt. Respondent-2 considered the petitioner, but rejected his claim vide order dated 20.5.1999. This order has been called in question by the petitioner on the ground that his case has been wrongly rejected. The grievance of the petitioner is that he should also be treated similarly and appointed Lab. Asstt. against the available vacancy. The stand of the respondents is that petitioner having accepted the appointment has no right to claim appointment to a post on which he has to be promoted on his own turn. In case he was not satisfied with the appointment, he should not have accepted and joined. As a matter of fact, he accepted the post and joined in 1995. The question is whether a person who accepts appointment made on compassionate ground and joins the duty has no right to claim higher post. In State of Bihar v. Samsuz Zoha, 1996 AIR(SC) 1961

(2.) The next question is whether the petitioner has been discriminated as similarly situated persons were appointed on higher post. First of all, there is no plea merely because the petitioner holds the same qualification does not make him similarly situated. The petitioner has nowhere pleaded the position his father held in the Education Department. Moreover, wrong orders passed earlier in favour of some persons do not amount to discrimination, if correct order is passed in favour of others. This has been laid down in M/s Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G., Health Services, 1997 AIR(SC) 3801