PINTO MURMU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in this writ application has been made for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to appoint the petitioner on a suitable post on compassionate grounds.

(2.) MR . Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the petitioner's wife, namely, Late Asther Maya Hansda was earlier appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Primary School, Karikadar in the District of Dumka. She died in harness on 8.4.2006. After her death, the petitioner had filed the application before the Respondents -authorities for his appointment on compassionate grounds on the basis of death of his wife, who was a Government employee. The petitioner's representation was, however, rejected by the Respondents vide letter dated 8.1.2007 (Annexure -3) on the ground that on the date of application, the petitioner had crossed the age of 40 years, which is the maximum age limit for the appointment. Learned counsel submits that the rejection of the petitioner's prayer on the above ground is totally misconceived as because in the matter of compassionate appointment, age restriction as per Rule 54 of the Service Rules, does not apply since such rule applies only to those applicants who seek their regular appointment. Referring to a Notification of the Government dated 25.7.1998, a copy of which has been annexed, learned counsel explains that vide the above Notification, the age bar of 40 years has been relaxed in case of appointment on compassionate grounds, although it is within discretion of the Department Head to exercise the powers vested in him to grant the age relaxation. Learned counsel submits further that the above ground has been categorically stated by the petitioner at Para 10 of his writ application.

(3.) APPARENTLY , the counter affidavit does not specifically advert to the amended Rule referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which has been notified by the Government on 24.7.1998. The