AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Kumar, J.—This appeal is preferred challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition where the petitioner has sought for setting-aside the endorsement and a writ of mandamus to appoint him to the post of Program Administrator (Class-III) by changing the cadre of Junior Assistant-cum-typist (Class-III) from the date of his appointment. For the purpose of convenience, the parties would be referred to as they are referred to in the writ petition.
The petitioner has completed his graduation in B.Sc. (Computer Science) in the year 2002-03. His father was working as a Traffic Controller and died in harness on 22.10.2001. Therefore, he made a representation for Compassionate Appointment for the post of Program Administrator (Class-III). However, he was not appointed as Program Administrator (Class-III) but his appointment was as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist. He joined the duty. Then he challenged the said appointment contending that he should have been given an appointment taking into consideration his educational qualification i.e., B.Sc. (Computer Science) and appointed him as a Program Administrator. The learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that once the petitioner accepts the appointment and enters into service, just because he is better qualified, he does not get a right to change the cadre. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, persons, who are similarly placed are given the said benefit by amending the Circular. However, the case of the petitioner is not considered. Therefore, a direction is required to be issued to consider his case. That was not the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition. In the writ petition, he sought for quashing the endorsement issued declining to give him the higher post and he wanted a direction to appoint him in the higher post. Under these circumstances, we do not see any justification to interfere with the order. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to give a representation pointing out the benefit given to the persons, who are similarly placed and request for similar treatment.
Appeal stands dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
There is a delay of 20 days in preferring this appeal. As we have not entertained the writ appeal, the application for delay is also dismissed.