AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. M. Devananda Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Th. Ibohal Singh, learned G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondents.
The short factual matrix of the petitioner''s case is that the petitioner''s father, Shri Th. Shamungou Singh, was serving as Jamandar of 1st Bn. Manipur Rifles on regular basis and he was the sole bread earner of the members of the family and while he was serving in the capacity of Jamandar he died on 12.9.2000 due to illness. As such after the death of his father, the dependants of his father, i.e. the petitioner, his mother, brother and sister, were left in a very bad financial condition. It is also the case of both the parties that the Govt. of Manipur with the very object of making appointment on compassionate ground to the family members of the late government employee who died in harness in the distress had framed a scheme �popularly known as dieinharness scheme�. Under the relevant dieinharness scheme of the Govt. of Manipur, the petitioner is eligible for appointment to the ClassIII/IV post of the Govt. of Manipur.
It is said that after the death of his father the whole burden of the family was shifted to the petitioner. His educational qualification at the time of the death of his father was ClassXII passed and had obtained a computer course for six months from the Institute of Computer Main Power, New Delhi. Petitioner being eligible for appointment under the dieinharness scheme filed an application dated 2.10.2000 for appointment on compassionate ground to the Commandant, 1st Bn. M.R. for appointment on compassionate ground to any suitable post. It is said that his brother, sister and mother had also submitted �No Objection Certificate� dated 7.7.2000 to the appointment of the petitioner under the dieinharness scheme to the concerned authority, a copy of the said �No Objection Certificate� dated 7.7.2000 is available at AnnexureA/2(Colley) to the present writ petition. The Commandant, 1st Bn. M.R. also was pleased to write a letter dated 6.4.2000 to the concerned Revenue Official to hold an enquiry about the monthly income and also if any movable property left by his father. In pursuance of the said letter, the SubDivisional Officer, Imphal East, Porompat under her letter dated 26.10.2000 submitted the report mentioning about the legal heirs of his father. Ultimately the Police Headquarter, i.e. the Director General of Police, Manipur under letter dated 28.12.2001 requested the Joint Secretary(Home), Govt. of Manipur for getting approval of the Govt. of Manipur to the appointment of the present petitioner as Asstt. Sub Inspector of Police under the dieinharness scheme against the existing vacancies, copy of the said letter is available at AnnexureA/3(Colly) to the present writ petition. It is also said that the petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee consisting of:
(1) Shri T. Thangthuam, IPS I.G. of Police (Trg.), Manipur Imphal Chairman
(2) Shri D. Mishra, IPS Dy. I.G. of Police (OpsII) Manipur. Member
(3)Shri Chr. Doungel, IPS Comdt./2nd Bn. Manipur Rifles, Imphal Member
who had conducted physical test and written test for appointment of six candidates for the post of 4(four) Asst. SubInspector (ASI) and 2(two) Riflemen under the dieinharness scheme.
It is also said that even the Hon''ble Chief Minister, Manipur had made a noting on 27.1.2003 in the relevant file to examine and process for appointment of the petitioner under the dieinharness scheme as per the rules, but the reasons known to the respondents, the case of the petitioner for appointment under the dieinharness scheme had been delayed as a result the petitioner approached this court by filing the present writ petition.
The respondents filed their affidavitinopposition stating that a Committee was constituted vide D.G.P''s order dated 8.5.2001 in order to conduct physical fitness test and written test for appointment of 6(six) candidates including the petitioner to the post of 4(four) A.S.Is. and 2(two) Riflemen. But the petitioner could not clear 100m. and 800 m. race within the stipulated timings and as such the Committee had not allowed him to sit in the written test examination. Accordingly after due consideration his application for appointment to the post of ASI was rejected. It is also stated that passing of physical fitness test is the condition precedent for appointment of the candidate to the post of ASI according to the recruitment rules. As such the appointment of the petitioner to the post of ASI under the dieinharness scheme does not arise.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even if the petitioner is not eligible for the post of ASI, he could be considered for appointment to any post under the relevant dieinharness scheme of the Govt. of Manipur inasmuch as for appointment under the dieinharness scheme there is strict procedures for appointment in the case of general/normal employment is not required to be followed and object of appointment under the dieinharness scheme on compassionate ground is to rehabilitate the family in distress of the deceased employee who died in harness. It is also the case of the petitioner that the applicant for appointment under the said dieinharness scheme cannot claim for appointment to a particular post and it is at the discretion of the appointing authority to appoint the applicant to any suitable post according to the wisdom of the appointing authority under the relevant dieinharness scheme. Such being the situation, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition could be considered for appointment to any under the dieinharness scheme in as much as the petitioner has no choice for a particular post under the said diein harness scheme. In the present case, as the petitioner is not suitable for appointment to the post of ASI, he could be considered for appointment to any post under the relevant dieinharness scheme of the Govt. of Manipur. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the considered view that the applicant for appointment under the said dieinharness scheme has no choice of post and it is at the discretion of the concerned authority to consider the applicant for appointment to any post under the relevant dieinharness scheme of the Govt. of Manipur and also the rejection of the preset petitioner for appointment to the post of ASI shall not bare the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment6 to any post under the related dieinharness scheme of the Govt. of Manipur.
In view of the above discussions, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to any post under the relevant dieinharness scheme as expeditiously as possible subject to the seniority position of the petitioner in the list of the applicants maintained by the concerned department for appointment under the dieinharness scheme.
With the above observations and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.