KAMLESH KUMAR NANKANI Vs. ZONAL MANAGER FCI JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FATHER of the petitioner Udha Ram, who was an employee of the respondent Food Corporation of India, died on 2. 2. 1981 while working at Jaipur. He left behind his widow and four minor children of the age of 2 years to 9 years. The petitioner was of the age of 9 years at the time of death of his father. The petitioner being so advised, moved an application through his mother on 16. 5. 1988 vide (Annexure-1) after seven years of the death of the deceased employee to the respondent for giving him appointment on the suitable post as per the qualifications possessed by the petitioner. Request was repeated on number of dates with continued representations made vide (Annexure 1 to 5) right up to the year 1989. The request for appointment was rejected by the respondent Corporation vide its letter (Annexure-R1/2) dated 19. 8. 1989. Mrs. Savita Nankani, widow of the deceased also approached to Hon'ble the Prime Minister. The Office of the Hon'ble Prime Minister had sent her representation to the respondent Corporation vide (Annexure-6) dated 1. 6. 1990. The respondent Corporation ultimately finally rejected the request of the petitioner vide (Annexure-7) dated 9. 8. 1991 on the ground that the request of the dependent cannot be considered as it was time barred.

(2.) BEING aggrieved the petitioner has filed this present writ petition for the relief for issuing a direction to the respondent Corporation to re-consider his case and to offer the petitioner appointment on the suitable post as per his qualification.

(3.) IT is provided under the rule itself that no one less than the age of 18 years of age can be offered the appointment but at the same time enables the dependant who is minor to get the appointment within one year of his attaining the age of majority. Assuming that the dependant who is of 10 years of age at the time of death of his father, applies within one year after the death of such an employee, admittedly no appointment could be given to such a person and a decision could only be taken after such dependant attain the majority. Could such a dependant who is a minor of 8 years or 9 years apply in such situation when such a minor even could not know about his qualification which he would attain at the time of majority. In law, application of a minor has no relevancy as he is incompetent to enter into a contract. The respondent has not come with the plea that the family does not need any compassionate appointment or that the family was having any other resources to feed themselves.