LAKHAN KUMAR Vs. C.C.L.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.10.2005 (Annexure-9), whereby the respondents have rejected the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground after the death of his father late Surjan Munda and the mother-Bachni Devi. It has been stated that his father died in harness on 23.11.1997. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was aged about 15 years 7 months and 22 days. After the death of his father, petitioner requested the respondents for keeping his name in the live roster in accordance with the provision of Para 9.5.0(III) of NCWA-VI. On attaining majority, he submitted application for employment on 29.3.2001. When no order was passed on the said application, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2352 of 2004. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application within three months. The respondents, thereafter, passed order rejecting the claim of the petitioner as time barred. The petitioner challenged the said rejection order in W.P.(S) No. 5291 of 2004. The said writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner then preferred appeal against the said order in the Division Bench of this Court being L.P.A. No. 780 of 2004. The said L.P.A. was disposed of directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for employment commensurate with his qualifications, if he is otherwise eligible, within three months. When the order was not passed within the prescribed period, the petitioner moved for contempt in Cont.(C) Case No. 53 of 2007. In the meanwhile, the respondents passed the order rejecting the petitioner's claim again. The contempt case was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge that order.

(3.) In the instant case, the petitioner has challenged the said order dated 19.10.2005. It has been submitted that the impugned order is wholly illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provision of Para 9.5.0(III) of NCWA-VI. Since the petitioner was aged about 15 years 7 months and 22 days at the time of death of his father, his claim falls within the said provision of. NCWA-VI.