Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 29: J&K High Court Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar today directed Home Secretary to appoint Suresh Mitla as Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) under SRO 43 of 1994.
Suresh had filed the petition, seeking quashment of the June 25, 2003 order rejecting his request for compassionate appointment as Sub-Inspector in J&K police (executive) under the provisions of SRO 43 of 1994 on the same analogy as had been adopted in the case of Vikram Singh, w.e.f the date Vikram was appointed with all other consequential benefits.
Suresh's case is that his father and father of Vikram died in harness while serving in the vigilance organisation as Inspectors in a gap of 12 days. Both applied for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 as they were qualified and only eligible persons in their respective families. While he had passed B Sc Part-I, Vikram had passed 12th standard. The home department recommended cases of both of them for compassionate appointment as ASIs in relaxation of rules. GAD, however, granted relaxation only to Vikram who was appointed as ASI. Suresh's application was kept pending without any justifiable reason as a result of which he filed writ petition SWP No 1042/2002 and the court by order dated August 23, 2002 directed the respondents to consider his claim of compassionate appointment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of order. The direction having not been complied with, the petitioner filed contempt petition bearing COA No 25/2003 and during its pendency, the impugned order dated June 25, 2003 was passed by stating that petitioner was offered the post of constable, based on his qualification which he declined. Vikram was, however, given the post of ASI by relaxing his qualification. It is also stated in the order that the relaxation can be granted on discretionary basis and the petitioner cannot claim it as a matter of right, as it was given to Vikram.
The Chief Justice, after hearing the two sides, observed that Supreme Court held that even though the grant of relaxation was discretionary, there could not be any discrimination. There is no distinguishable feature on facts. In reply affidavit filed by the respondents distinguishable facts are not mentioned. In such circumstances and in the light of the Supreme Court judgment, holding that even in discretionary matters, Article 14 of the Constitution has to be followed.
The court observed that even though in the objections filed, it was stated that there was no power to grant relaxation of qualification but in terms of Rule 7 of the compassionate appointment rules, 1994, the government was empowered to relax educational/technical qualification as the case may be. Since the discretion having not been exercised by GAD in the petitioner's case though there were no distinguishable facts, the same cannot be accepted, hence the impugned order was liable to be set aside. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside with a direction to Home Department to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner as ASI as it was given to the 4th respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Chief Justice ordered. --(JNF) |
