SASITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in search of the compassionate appointment because of death of her father on 22nd June, 1990, who was employee of the respondent-State. The petitioner was minor as on date of death of father of the petitioner. The date of birth of the present petitioner is 2nd May, 1978 and, therefore, after attaining the age of majority, the petitioner ought to have been appointed by the respondent-State as an employee of the State Government.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that more than i.e. approximately two decades time have already been lapsed after the death of the father of the present petitioner. The very purpose of giving compassionate appointment is already frustrated. Compassionate appointment is to give support to the family of the deceased. By passage of twenty long years, after death of the father of the present petitioner, this purpose will not be achieved. Moreover, there cannot be reservation for the petitioner in the employment of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192 and submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision also, there is no legal duty vested in the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the present petitioner nor there is any legal vested right in the petitioner to get compassionate appointment and, hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons:-