Manzoor Ahmad Wani vs Union Of India & Ors.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in denying him appointment on compassionate grounds despite the fact that his father, Late Ahamadullah Wani, died in harness while serving as an Instructor in the Department of Handicrafts on 24.11.1990. It is submitted that, as the applicant was a minor at the time of the demise of his father, he became eligible to apply only upon attaining majority in the year 2000, whereupon he immediately submitted his application for compassionate appointment along with all requisite documents.

It is further submitted that the respondents processed the applicant's case for over two decades and repeatedly placed it before the Departmental Screening Committee on various occasions, including 26.02.2018, 14.06.2018, 01.10.2020 and 12.08.2021, while consistently assuring the applicant that his case was under active consideration. During the entire period, the respondents neither questioned his eligibility nor raised any objection regarding his educational qualification. According to the applicant, such prolonged consideration of his claim created a legitimate expectation that his case would be favourably considered.

Learned counsel further submits that, having received no final decision from the respondents, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1558/2021, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 12.10.2021, directing the respondents to treat the Original Application as a representation and decide the same by passing a reasoned order within eight weeks. Upon failure of the respondents to comply with the said directions, the applicant initiated contempt proceedings, whereafter the respondents, for the first time, rejected his claim vide order dated 09.05.2023 on the ground of ineligibility.

The said order was challenged by the applicant in O.A. No. 453/2023, which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 25.03.2025 with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the applicant's claim in accordance with law, particularly in view of the contention that similarly situated non-matriculate candidates had been granted compassionate appointment. It is submitted that, notwithstanding the aforesaid directions, the respondents again rejected the applicant's claim vide order dated 21.07.2025 on the ground that he was not matriculate, despite the applicant having passed the Secondary School Examination and having placed the requisite certificate before the competent authority.

**05.**According to the applicant, the respondents, having kept his case pending for more than two decades and having repeatedly represented that it was under active consideration, cannot now deny his claim by raising an objection regarding educational qualification, which was always within their knowledge. It is further submitted that the delay in consideration of the claim is wholly attributable to the respondents and that the applicant's financial circumstances, following the demise of his father, prevented him from pursuing higher education. It is contended that the applicant has now acquired the requisite qualification and, therefore, his claim deserves reconsideration in accordance with law.

It is also submitted that the applicant has exhausted all remedies available under law and that no other proceedings involving the same cause of action are pending before any Court or Tribunal.

However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the ends of justice would be adequately served if a direction is issued to the respondents to treat the present Original Application as a representation and reconsider the applicant's claim, along with the documents annexed thereto, strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated period.

Per contra, Mr. A. S. Sodhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents pursuant to the advance notice served by learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the impugned order has been passed solely on the ground that the applicant does not possess the requisite educational qualification, i.e., matriculation or an equivalent qualification, as required under the applicable rules/policy. It is submitted that the applicant's claim has already been considered and rejected on two occasions and that the impugned order has been passed only on account of his alleged non-fulfilment of the prescribed qualification criteria. However, learned counsel fairly submits that if this Tribunal issues appropriate directions for reconsideration of the applicant's claim, the same shall be considered in accordance with law, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Having considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present Original Application pending, particularly in view of the limited relief now sought on behalf of the applicant.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the Original Application as a representation and reconsider the claim of the applicant in light of the assertions made therein, the documents annexed thereto, the earlier orders passed by this Tribunal, as well as the fact regarding the educational qualification now claimed to have been acquired by the applicant. The respondents shall examine the matter strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations, policy and the law governing the field.

The respondents shall pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order dealing with all the contentions raised by the applicant. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the respondents.

With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Registry shall consign the file to the Record Room after due compliance.