Arvind Kumar Sethi vs State of Haryana and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed that communication (Annexure ''P-8'') sent to his father by the Director of Primary Education, Haryana, be quashed and a mandamus be issued to the respondents directing them to appoint him on compassionate grounds.

The factual backdrop of the case set up by the petitioner is that his father is a retired government servant who is in receipt of the pension. His mother was also serving the government as a J.B.T. Teacher at the time of her death on 5.6.1995. Claiming himself to be the dependent of his mother Smt. Shano Devi, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in terms of the instructions issued by the Government of Haryana on 8.5.1995. After some correspondence and calling upon the petitioner to furnish some information, the respondent No. 2 examined the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and rejected it vide Annexure ''P-8'' on the ground that income of the family of the petitioner is more than Rs. 2,500/per month.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the reason assigned in the impugned communication is patently erroneous inasmuch as the income of the married brothers of the petitioner cannot be taken as the income of the family of the deceased. The learned counsel submitted that father of the petitioner had submitted affidavits Annexures ''P-9'' and ''P-10'' filed before the competent authority to show that he was interested in the employment of the petitioner and that the total family income of the deceased was not more than Rs. 2,500/- per month.

After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel we have not been able to find any irregularity in the decision taken by the respondent No. 2. None of the documents filed along with the writ petition gives an inkling of the dependency of the petitioner on his mother late Smt. Shano Devi nor any material has been produced before the Court to show that two brothers of the petitioners are not living with the family and, therefore, the income of the two brothers cannot be taken into consideration for the determination of the family income.

The ration-card which has been placed on record as Annexure ''P-4'' is shown to be duplicate of the original. On our asking, the learned counsel produced a ration card which purports to be the original duplicate ration card. A look at the same shows that it does not bear any date. The entries made in this ration-card cast serious doubt on the genuineness of the claim made by the petitioner that he should be treated a" a dependent of late Smt. Shano Devi on the basis of the ration-card. On our asking, the counsel stated that the duplicate ration-card was issued some time in January, 1995. If the original had been lost and the duplicate was issued in January, 1995, how could the entries be made therein till the month of July, 1996. This shows that the ration-card has been fabricated by the petitioner with a view to secure employment on compassionate ground.

In our considered opinion, the failure of the petitioner to produce evidence before the competent authority to show that he was dependent on the deceased employee and further evidence to show that the family income did not exceed Rs. 2,500/- warranted rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment.

It has to be remembered that methodology of compassionate employment is an exception to the normal rule of consideration of the competitive claim of all the eligible persons. Therefore, the competent authority is entitled to insist upon the rigorous compliance of all the conditions incorporated in the instructions issued by the Government for compassionate appointments.

As already mentioned above, the petitioner has failed to fulfil the basic conditions enumerated in the instructions issued by the Government of Haryana vide circular letters dated 8.5.1995 and 31.8.1995 and we do not see any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent No. 2.

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.