AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsel for the Appellant and learned Government Advocate for the State.
Since the writ application of the Appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge refusing to give any direction to appoint him on the post of
ASI (Ministerial), the appeal has been preferred.
Appellant's father was working as a Company Commander in the 17th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force at Kabirdham. He died on 01.03.2016.
The death is supposed to have taken place in certain mysterious circumstances however, the postmortem report indicates that it was a case of suicide.
Be that as it may, the Respondents authorities treated the death to be one in harness and, therefore, the Appellant, who applied for compassionate
appointment was considered. The recommendation was also made for consideration for appointment on the post of ASI (Ministerial), but was instead
appointed on the post of Constable (General Duty).
The learned Single Judge was of the view that there were certain deliberations made at the higher level in the Department and taking into
consideration the availability of post as also that certain weightage is required to be given to dependents of those persons who may have died in Naxal
violence, he came to be accommodated in a vacant post of Constable (General Duty).
The learned Single Judge further took note of the fact that the decision of the superior authority was communicated to him and option was given to
him to either accept or refuse. However, since the Appellant accepted, he joined the post of Constable (General Duty) sometime in the year 2017 and
after joining, he decided to file a writ application for his reappointment on a higher post.
We have taken note of the detailed return which have been filed on behalf of the State where they have brought on record the evidence of
deliberations which were made and the reasons why the Appellant came to be appointed on the post of Constable (General Duty) and could not be
accommodated on the post of ASI (Ministerial). We do find that there is any deliberate mischief or arbitrariness in the decision because he was not
the only one who had been treated in such a manner.
We also take note of the provisions of the Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2013, especially Clause 20 which categorically states that once a
person accepts appointment on compassionate ground, he cannot demand or beget any change on the post or position which he had been offered by
way of compassionate appointment.
Since it was not a case of a informed decision making, therefore, we do find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 18.06.2018.
Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.