Mahaveer Prasad vs D.I.O.S. and Others

Re-C.M. Delay Condonation Application No. 183781 of 2003

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application as well as the counter affidavit.

Cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal is sufficient. This application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Re-Appeal

Heard Sri Ravindra Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Respondent No. 1 and have perused the record.

The dispute in the present appeal is with regard to grant of appointment on compassionate ground. The father of the writ-Petitioner-Appellant late Ramesh Chandra died in harness. The appointment was thereafter given by the District Inspector of Schools by a detailed order dated 27.01.2003 to the Respondent No. 4, namely, Mukesh Kumar alias Munesh Kumar, the youngest son of the deceased employee. Challenging the said order, the writ Petitioner Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 17493 of 2003, which has been dismissed by judgment and order dated 24.04.2003. Aggrieved by the same, this special appeal has been filed.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that since the Appellant was the eldest son and was looking after the family of the deceased employee, he ought to have been given such appointment on compassionate ground and not the youngest son. According to him the Respondent No. 4 who has been given appointment was not even major at the time of passing of the impugned order by the District Inspector of Schools.

We have perused the order dated 27.01.2003, which has been passed in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 27790 of 2002. It has been categorically stated in the said order that appointment to the Respondent No. 4 has been given after taking the statements of the widow of the deceased employee as well as other sons and daughters. The age of the Respondent No. 4 has been shown as 19 years, meaning thereby that he was major at the time of passing of the impugned order by the District Inspector of Schools. Learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner Appellant has also not been able to show that the Appellant has vested right to be given such appointment.

Considering the fact that the appointment has been given to the Respondent No. 4 after due consideration and after taking the views of the other family members of the deceased employee, we do not find any infirmity with the same and as such the order dismissing the writ petition by the learned Single Judge is wholly justified and does not call for any interference.

This special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.