SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for his appointment on compassionate ground.

(2.) The father of the petitioner went missing since 22/8/2001. Station diary was made. The petitioner thereafter applied for grant of compassionate appointment after expiry of seven years, which was rejected on the ground that there was no declaration about the civil death of the father of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter moved before the competent Court of jurisdiction by filing a suit which was numbered as Title Suit No. 118 of 2010. The suit was decreed on 26/3/2012 declaring civil death of Shiv Lal Rajak, the father of the petitioner. The petitioner again applied for compassionate appointment along with the copy of the said judgment but his application was again rejected on the ground that as per the Rules of the Bank, there is no provision to grant compassionate appointment in case of civil death. The said order was also challenged before this Court in WPS No. 6884 of 2013. This Court vide order dtd. 19/5/2015 set aside the aforesaid order and directed the District Level Compassionate Appointment Committee to consider the case of the petitioner and pass a fresh order. The authority thereafter considered the case of the petitioner and again dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dtd. 13/7/2016 holding that the petitioner is non matric and/or has not passed Class-X, thus he cannot be appointed as per the Rules of the Bank. This order is also challenged by the petitioner.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad as there is no requirement of matriculation for fresh appointed in the Bank for the post of peon. He argues that when there is no requirement for matriculation pass certificate during initial appointment then in case of compassionate appointment also there cannot be a minimum requirement of matriculation. He states that taking three different grounds on three different occasions the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected, which is absolutely illegal.