NIRANJAN BIHARI RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer to consider the appointment of petitioner on Class III post instead of Class IV post, as per his eligibility and Government policy for compassionate appointment, as has been done in the case of several other similarly situated persons.

(2.) From the factual exposition as has been drawn from the writ application is that the father of the petitioner, late Raghunath Ram worked as peon in the Office of the Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Daltonganj-cum-Garhwa-cum-Latehar. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 010.199 The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in the place of his deceased father on 26.04.1993 on a class IV post, albeit the fact that he was a matriculate with more than 45% marks and as such he was eligible for appointment on a Class III post as per provisions in circulars issued by the State Government. He joined the post due to abject poverty, despite being eligible for a Class III post. The petitioner represented before the respondent-authorities for reconsidering his case for appointment on a Class III post, in accordance with his qualification, but the respondents rejected his plea, vide memo no. 314, dated 10.03.2002, on the ground that petitioner cannot be reappointed in a Class III post after his earlier appointment on a Class IV post by way of compassionate ground. It has been further stated that aggrieved by the said rejection of his representation, the petitioner preferred writ application before this Honourable Court in W.P. (S) no. 5487/2002 praying therein to quash memo no. 314 dated 10.03.2002 and further for a direction for appointment of petitioner in Class III post from Class IV post after considering his qualification on ground of parity but Honourable court vide order dated 07.08.2003 dismissed the writ application on the ground that once compassionate appointment is given and accepted the right to such appointment is exhausted and consideration for higher post is not warranted in law. It has been further stated that despite the order of this Honourable Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 5487/2002 several other similarly situated persons have been considered for appointment and appointed on Class III post. Though they were earlier appointed on Class IV post, those appointments have been brought on record by way of Annexure-3 series as the case of the petitioner was not considered and other similarly situated persons were considered for appointment. The petitioner has approached this court for appointment on Class III post on ground of parity.

(3.) Mr. Pandey Ashok Nath Roy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by M/s Pragati Prasad strenuously urges that there cannot be a discrimination made by the State Government. Once they have appointed the similarly situated persons they are bound to appoint the petitioner, as the case of the other similarly situated persons are similar to that of petitioner. Petitioner in view of his financial adversity accepted the appointment letter for Class IV post though with an objection and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner has accepted the appointment on Class IV post without any objection. In the case of other similarly situated persons they have also accepted the appointment on Class IV post and there cases were reconsidered. In view of that the case of the petitioner should also be reconsidered for appointment on Class III post.