AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Heard Sri Anant Chaudhari, for the appellant and Sri S.K. Verma, for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellant says that he has no grievance in so far as the direction has been issued for considering the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds on the post in question in pursuance of letter dated 17th July, 2007 but he says that no final direction could have been issued for giving appointment.
We find that the respondent had been agitating for his appointment on compassionate ground right from the year 2000 when he moved an application dated 30th August, 2000 when he was appearing in B.A.II examination on the death of his father. The Corporation rejected his claim for appointment on classIII post vide order dated 19/20.4.2004. Thereafter, it appears that the respondent completed his graduation and thereafter he again approached the Corporation where his case was considered and on 17th July, 2007, the Executive Director passed an order saying that his case requires to be reviewed and, therefore, his name be restored fresh from the date he gave application after judgment i.e. 24.5.2007 as and when the vacancy arises, he may be considered.
Looking to the fact that the respondent has attained the qualification and that he is son of the deceased employee who died in harness, there appears no reason now for the Corporation not to give appointment to the petitioner on appropriate post as per its own direction dated 17th July, 2007.
Of course, when considering the case for appointing the respondent to the post in question his eligibility otherwise as may be permissible under law has to be considered.
We, therefore, do not find that any prejudice has been caused to the appellant by issuance of the direction for giving appointment to the respondent, and when the appointment has to be considered if it is found that the respondent has incurred any disqualification or otherwise is not eligible for the post then he cannot be given appointment on such a post but in absence of any ineligibility or disqualification, there appears to be no reason as to why the appointment be not given to him.
We, therefore, dispose of this appeal accordingly.
(Ordered accordingly)