Latika Goala vs The State Level Committee (Slc) ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 638 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/16

GAHC010213562019




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/7712/2019

            LATIKA GOALA
            W/O- LATE DURGA PRASAD GOALA, VILL- SERISPUR T E, P.O SERISPUR,
            P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE (SLC) AND 3 ORS
            REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DISPUR,
            GUWAHATI- 06

            2:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
             HAILAKANDI
             REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
             HAILAKANDI
             P.O
             P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
            ASSAM

            3:THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER
            ASSAM
             GUWAHATI- 16

            4:THE LABOUR OFFICER
             HAILAKANDI
             P.O
             P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A M BARBHUIYA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
                                                                      Page No.# 2/16




                               BEFORE
               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

                                    ORDER

Date : 23.02.2022

Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of (i) communication dated 16.11.2018 issued by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Guwahati, and (ii) minutes of the SLC meeting dated 07.12.2010 in so far as it relates to rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

3) The case of the petitioner is that her husband, while working as a Lower Division Assistant (LDA for short) in the office of the Labour Officer, Hailakandi (respondent no. 4), had died-in-harness on 29.06.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground in any Grade-IV post. It is projected that OM dated 09.09.1983 was prevailing at the time when the husband of the petitioner had died and when she had applied for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was put up before the DLC. The DLC in its meeting held on 05.03.2010, recommended the name of the petitioner for being appointed against a single vacancy of Grade-IV which had occurred during the year 2000. However, as the appointment did not materialize, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 18.10.2018 Page No.# 3/16

before the Labour Commissioner, Assam (respondent no. 3) for appointing her on compassionate ground. However, she was informed vide letter dated 16.11.2018 that the SLC, by its minutes dated 07.12.2010, had rejected her candidature on the ground of there being no vacancy position available in the office of the Labour Officer, Hailakandi (respondent no. 4) till 2003 (within two years of the death of her husband). Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the rejection of the case of the petitioner was illegal and the delay in approaching this Court has been explained by submitting that the SLC minutes dated 07.12.2010 was communicated to the petitioner only vide communication dated 16.11.2018 and therefore, the petitioner had filed this writ petition on 02.09.2019.

4) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the relevant policy for compassionate appointment, which would govern the case of the petitioner would be the policy prevailing at the time when the husband of the petitioner had died. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the case of State Bank of India & Anr. v. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571 . It was also submitted that in this case delay was caused by the respondent authorities in taking a decision, as such, the principle of nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propia would attract which means that one cannot take advantage of his own wrong and on the said point, reliance is placed on the case of Dwipen Chandra Kalita v. The State of Assam & Ors., W.P.(C) 6173/2016, decided on 27.04.2018, by the coordinate Bench of this Court wherein despite a delay of 20 years, the matter relating to claim for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground was remanded back to the Secondary Education Department for a fresh consideration. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Page No.# 4/16

petitioner is entitled to relief as prayed for.

5) Per contra, the learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer and has made his submissions to justify the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner.

6) It may be mentioned that this writ petition was initially dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2020, amongst others, on the ground of delay in approaching this Court and that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be made after 17 long years. The said order was assailed in intra Court appeal and the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 28.01.2021, allowed W.A. No. 177/2020 and by setting aside the order dated 12.10.2020 and remanded this writ petition for a fresh decision. The said appellate judgment has been duly considered.

7) The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two following points, firstly that the policy regarding compassionate appointment as prevailing at the time of death of the government servant shall prevail, and secondly, the rejection of her case by the SLC was wrong and illegal, and thirdly, the delay on part of the respondents in communicating SLC minutes dated 07.12.2010 was fatal for which the case of the petitioner is required to be reconsidered again.

8) The first point as to which policy for compassionate appointment shall govern the case of the petitioner whose husband had died-in- harness on 29.06.2003 is taken up first.

Page No.# 5/16

9) Apart from the case of State Bank of India (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court has also examined another a decision by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ahid Ahmed Majumdar Vs. State of Assam & Ors., (2020) 1 GLR: 2019 (4) GLT 812: (2017) 0 Supreme (Gau) 1524, where this Court had held that the OM dated 01.06.2015 will have prospective application so as to cover those cases where Government servant had died after the issuance of the OM dated 01.06.2015 and the same cannot have a retrospective application so as to divert a considerate of his already acquired right under the existing circular holding the field on the date on which the Government servant had died. The said finding was arrived at by relying on the decision of the Supreme court of India in the case of Canara Bank Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 . Be it mentioned that the case of State Bank of India (supra) was followed in the case of Canara Bank (supra).

10) In this regard, it is deemed appropriate to refer to the various paragraphs of the case of N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 1401: (2020) 7 SCC 617: 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 237. The said case was decided by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph nos. 11 to 21 are quoted below (extracted from "Supreme Today"):

"11. In all these cases, when the government employee died, the appellants were minor and they had turned 18, well beyond one year of death of the parent. As can be seen from the details in the chart, the dependants attained majority after a gap of 2-6 years from the respective date of death of their parents and then they applied for appointment. By the time, the dependent children turned 18, the amended provisions became operational w.e.f. 01.04.1999. As such their belated application for compassionate appointment should have been rejected at the threshold as being not in conformity with proviso to Rule 5. The appellants applied for compassionate appointment (after attainment of majority), well beyond the stipulated period of one year from the date of death of the parent, and therefore, those applications should not have been entertained being in contravention of Rules.

Page No.# 6/16

12. The provision of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 was considered in Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others v. K.R. Vishwanath, (2005) 7 SCC 206. Speaking for the division bench, Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat noted that the effect of the amended second proviso is that, unless the application is pending at the time of commencement of the Amendment Rules, the same can have no bearing on the claim for compassionate appointment. Thus, belated application filed by the dependant on attaining majority beyond one year from the date of death of the government employee would not be a valid application, consistent with the provisions of the Rules.

13. Insofar as the appellant's claim to legitimacy of appointment on the basis of Rule 9(3) of the Rules, a reading of Rule 9(3) suggests that it is a transitory provision granting extension of time for applying for compassionate appointment. But the transitory provision excludes application filed in contravention of Rule 5, as amended in 1999. In other words, applications filed by minor dependants who had not attained majority within one year from the date of death of the government servants will be in contravention of Rule 5. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the cases of the appellants are not covered by the transitory provision of Rule 9(3) introduced by the notification dated 28.5.2002.

14. It is well settled that for all government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as is mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. In Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan Das & Ors., (2008) 15 SCC 560. It was remarked accordingly that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirant.

15. This Court in SBI v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 while reiterating that no aspirant has a vested right to claim compassionate appointment, declared that the norms that are in force, when the application is actually considered, will be applicable. The employer's right to modify the scheme depending on its policies was recognized in this judgment. Similarly in MCB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583 this Court reiterated that compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with the prevalent scheme and no aspirant can claim that his case should be considered as per the scheme existing on the date of death of the Government employee.

16. However in Canara Bank & Anr. v. M . Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 in the context of major shift in policy, whereunder, instead of compassionate appointment (envisaged by the scheme dated 8.5.1993), ex gratia payment was proposed (under the circular dated 14.02.2005), the Court adopted a different approach. Noticing the extinguishment of, the right to claim appointment, this Court held the "dying in harness scheme" which was prevalent on the death of the employee, be the basis for consideration.

17. A two judges bench headed by Justice Uday U. Lalit noticed the Supreme Court's view in SBI v. Raj Kumar (supra) and MCB Gramin Bank v.

Page No.# 7/16

Chakrawarti Singh (supra) on one side and the contrary view in Canara Bank & Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) and felt the necessity of resolution of the conflicting question on whether the norms applicable on the date of death or on the date of consideration of application should apply. Accordingly, in State Bank of India & Ors. v. Sheo Shankar Tewari, (2019) 5 SCC 600 the Court referred the matter for consideration by a larger Bench so that the conflicting views could be reconciled.

18. The above discussion suggest that the view taken in Canara Bank & Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) is to be reconciled with the contrary view of the coordinate bench, in the two earlier judgments. Therefore, notwithstanding the strong reliance placed by the appellants counsel on Canara Bank & Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) as also the opinion of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Uday Krishna Naik v. State of Karnataka & Ors., MANU/KA/0203/1999 (Writ Petition No.37931 of 1998), it cannot be said that the appellants claim should be considered under the unamended provisions of the Rules prevailing on the date of death of the Government employee.

19. In the most recent judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 the earlier decisions governing the principles of compassionate appointment were discussed and analysed. Speaking for the bench, Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reiterated that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles in accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. The Dependent of a deceased government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and they must fulfill the norms laid down by the State's policy.

20. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee.

21. In view of the foregoing opinion, we endorse the Tribunal's view as affirmed by the High Court of Karnataka to the effect that the appellants were ineligible for compassionate appointment when their applications were considered and the unamended provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules will not apply to them. Since no infirmity is found in the impugned judgments, the appeals are found devoid of merit and the same are dismissed."

11) Therefore, in view of specific finding in paragraph 17, 19 and 20 of the Page No.# 8/16

case of N.C. Santhosh (supra), decided by the Full Bench (three Judge Bench) of the Supreme Court of India, the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ahid Ahmed Majumdar (supra) must be held to have been impliedly overruled. Therefore, neither the case of State Bank of India (supra) nor the case of Ahid Ahmed Majumdar (supra) would help the petitioner in any way.

12) In view of the discussion above, the first point is decided against the petitioner by holding that the scheme for compassionate appointment as prevailing on the date when it was actually considered would prevail.

13) The second point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the rejection of her case vide SLC minutes dated 07.12.2010 was wrong and illegal is taken up now.

14) In this regard, it appears that after OM dated 09.09.1983 on compassionate appointment issued by the Department of Personnel, Personnel (B), Government of Assam, notification dated 11.10.2006 was issued by the said Department. This was followed by an OM dated 02.03.2009 issued by the same Department. In the herein before referred notification dated 11.10.2006, in terms of the decision of this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das Vs. State of Assam & Ors. (2006) 4 GLT 694, it was provided, amongst others, as follows - "As per Hon'ble High Court direction all vacancies available against the quota of compassionate appointment is to be filled up within a period of six months from the date of occurrence of vacancies. In the Court order it is also mentioned that if the application of eligible candidates remain pending and cannot be Page No.# 9/16

considered due to want of vacancy for a period of two years from the date of making such application, all such applications will require no further consideration and must be understood to have spent their force ." In clause no. 5 of the OM dated 02.03.2009, it was provided that guidelines dated 11.10.2006 should be strictly adhered to. Thus, on 07.12.2010, when the SLC had considered the case of the petitioner in its meeting, the OM dated 02.03.2009 along with notification dated 11.10.2006 were in force.

15) It would now be relevant to quote the relevant directions as contained in para 7, 7(I) and 7(X) of the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), which are quoted below:-

"7. Having understood the principles governing compassionate appointment as deducible from the pronouncements of the Apex Court and in the light of what has been discussed above, this Court is of the view that it will only be just and appropriate to lay down the under noted principles on the basis of which, henceforth, claims relating to compassionate appointment will have to be considered:

I. All pending applications against existing and available vacancies as per the quota earmarked including the cases of the Petitioners in the present cases and all others, who may not be before the Court, shall be decided in accordance with the proposed directions to be laid down in the present order and also in accordance with the principles noted in the preceding paragraphs of this order. This will be done within a period of 4 (four) months from today. The present direction naturally has to be considered as a one-time measure in view of the subsequent direction as laid down in the succeeding paragraphs.

X. If the applications of eligible candidates remain pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2 (two) years from the date of making such applications, all such applications will require no further consideration and must be understood to have spent their force."

16) Following the ratio laid down in the case of N.C. Santhosh (supra), if the application of the petitioner is now considered, the OM dated 01.06.2015 is now in force. In the said context, it would be relevant to quote Page No.# 10/16

Principle-1 under clause -11, clause 15, and clause 24 of the OM dated 01.06.2015, which are as follows:-

"Principle-1: All pending applications against existing vacancies as per the quota earmarked including the cases of the petitioners in the present cases and all others, who may not be before the Court, shall be decided in accordance with the proposed directions to be laid down in the present order and also in accordance with the principles noted in the preceding paragraphs of this order. This will be done within a period of 4 (four) months from today. The present direction naturally has to be considered as a onetime measure in view of the subsequent directions as laid down in the succeeding paragraphs.

15. If sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate the persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment, it is open to the administrative Development/ Office to take up the matter with other Departments/Offices of the Government to provide at an early appointment on compassionate grounds to those in the waiting list.

24(a). As regards pending cases prior to issuance of the direction in Achyut Ranjan Das & 162 ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors (i.e. 3 rd August, 2006), the authorities/ Departments need to ensure the compliance of the directions contained in Principle 1 urgently. The High Court had fixed 30 th September, 2010 within which all such pending cases were required to be considered. Those departments which have not yet complied with the Principle 1 and disposed off all such pending cases shall compete it within six months from the date of issue of this OM.

(b) It may be noted that once consideration of a case as a one- time measure under Principle-1 is over, such applications that may remain pending are not required to be considered if a period of more than two years has elapsed. Thus, it is clarified that so far as the pending cases covered by Principle No.10 are concerned, these cases cannot be rejected applying the test of the principle No.10. The Principle-10 will come into operation only in respect of cases other than the pending case covered by the principle-1 i.e. cases received after the judgment dated 3-8-2006. This implies that if applications are pending for a period of two years from the date of making an application but could not be considered for want of vacancies, all such applications will require no further consideration and must be understood that they have spent their force."

17) Thus, it is seen that as the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the SLC in its minutes dated 07.12.2010, there was no further necessity to consider the case of the petitioner as per the mandate of Clause 24 Page No.# 11/16

of the said OM dated 01.06.2015, as all the pending cases were to be considered within 6 (six) months of the said OM. This clause appears to be in compliance with para 7(I) of the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra). Moreover, clause 24(b) of the OM dated 01.06.2015 appears to be in consonance with the directions issued in para 7(X) of the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra). The said para 7(X) is also quoted in the case of Hamidur Rahman & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Ors., W.P.(C) 1060/2008 decided by this Court by order dated 09.09.2008.

18) It may also be mentioned that in the case of Hamidur Rahman (supra) direction had been issued to consider all pending cases as one time measure. The said ratio would also not help the petitioner because the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the SLC. Thus directions as contained in para 7(X) of the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra) would also not apply in the case of the petitioner.

19) We may also refer to the case of Md. Amdad Ahmed v. The State of Assam & Ors., W.P.(C) 4500/2016, decided on 12.12.2018 . In the said case, the petitioner therein was a minor when his father had died on 29.07.1990 and on attaining majority, application for compassionate appointment was made on 04.07.1996. In the said context, it may be stated that in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 7 SCC 192 , the Supreme Court of India had held that rejection of application/ claim of the appellant as time barred was justified by holding that there cannot be reservation of vacancy till such time claimant becomes a major after a number of years unless there is some specific provision. Thus, this Court is inclined to observe that the case of Md. Amdad Page No.# 12/16

Ahmed (supra) was decided on facts peculiar to the said case and would not constitute a binding precedent to be followed in this case in hand. In the said case, the coordinate Bench of this Court had held that in light of the decision in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), even the belated application deserves to be considered and could not have been rejected on ground of delay or being "spent force". In so far as the said case is concerned, the said decision was rendered under the peculiar facts of the said case. It appears that it was not pointed out before the Court that in terms of directions contained in para 7(I) of the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), one time exercise was already conducted by the State. It also appears that the decision of this Court in the case of Faziron Nessa & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors., 2010 (4) GLT 340 and WP(C) No.262/2010 - Prabhuttam Brahma v. State of Assam and Ors ., were also not brought to the notice of this Court wherein this Court had held that in the event the applications remained pending and cannot be considered for want of vacancy or otherwise for a period of two years from the date of submission of such applications, it has to be understood as to have spent its force and also the time limit for submission of such applications was fixed as twelve months from the date of the death of the Government servant.

20) The husband of the petitioner had died on 29.06.2003, and the case of the petitioner was considered by the DLC only on 05.03.2010. In the meanwhile, because of the decision of this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), the policy of the State Government had undergone a sea-change. The said judgment, therefore, is akin to a judgment in rem, and would also bind the petitioner. Even assuming that it had not, the subsequent OMs issued by the State would hold the field. Therefore, the decision of this Court in the case of Page No.# 13/16

Dwipen Chandra Kalita (supra) would also not help the petitioner in any way. The reason is that the DLC had considered the vacancy for the year 2000, whereas the husband of the petitioner had died on 29.06.2003, three years after the vacancy arose. No provisions of law or OMs on compassionate appointment or any case citation has been shown that the vacancy of year other than in financial year when the government servant had died would have been lawfully considered for recommending appointment on compassionate ground. In the case of Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors., (2008) 15 SCC 560, the Supreme Court of India had observed that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirants. The petitioner has not been able to show that the DLC recommendation in favour of the petitioner, as made vide minutes dated 05.03.2010 was in accordance with law. Therefore, the SLC minutes dated 07.12.2010 is more acceptable than the DLC recommendation made in favour of the petitioner.

21) Therefore, by the time, the SLC had considered the candidature of the petitioner, the application of the petitioner was pending for more than 2 years from the date of death of her husband. Moreover, as per the SLC minutes dated 07.12.2010, there was also no vacancy in the office/ establishment of the respondent no. 4 till 2003, i.e. two years from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner. The said finding of SLC could not be negated by the petitioner as false. Hence, the Court is unable to find any fault with the decision of the SLC in its minutes dated 07.12.2010.

22) Coming to the present case in hand, the State's policy on Page No.# 14/16

compassionate appointment is contained in OM dated 01.06.2015, which is now in force. The said OM prescribes that applications pending for more than 2 (two) years is not required to be considered. The said terms and conditions flow from the decision of this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra), as followed in the case of Faziron Nessa v. State of Assam & Ors., 2010 (4) GLT 340 and WP(C) No.262/2010 - Prabhuttam Brahma v. State of Assam and Ors. It has not been demonstrated that the said decisions have been overruled.

23) The case of the petitioner was recommended by DLC minutes dated 05.03.2010. Therefore, it cannot be said that the case of the petitioner was kept in waiting list. The said clause 15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015 would have got attracted only if the case of the petitioner was kept in the waiting list. Therefore, the case of the petitioner, having been considered and her name being recommended by DLC by its minutes dated 05.03.2010 and thereafter rejected by the SLC by its minutes dated 07.12.2010, the case of the petitioner would not attract Clause 15 of OM dated 01.06.2015.

24) Thus, the second point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is decided against her by holding that the SLC minutes dated 07.12.2010 is sustainable on facts and in law.

25) The third point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken up now. The point urged was whether the delay on part of the respondents in communicating SLC minutes dated 07.12.2010 was fatal for which the case of the petitioner is required to be reconsidered again.

Page No.# 15/16

26) In this regard, it may be mentioned that this Court had entertained the challenge made to the SLC minutes dated 07.12.2010 without finding the delay fatal. Rather, it appears that as a Court of equity, this Court had considered the challenge to SLC minutes dated 07.10.2010 despite this writ petition having been filed on 02.09.2019. However, no material including case law has been pressed into service to demonstrate that merely because the SLC decision taken by minutes dated 07.12.2010 was not communicated to the petitioner, the decision would become bad in law. Therefore, on the third point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is unable to hold that the SLC decision taken vide minutes dated 07.12.2010 is bad in law or on facts.

27) Due consideration was given to the judgment and order dated 28.01.2021 in W.A. No. 177/2020. In this regard, as per the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner would not get appointment based on the recommendation made in her favour by the DLC minutes dated 05.03.2010, but a final decision is required to be taken by the SLC. Therefore, under the relevant OM in force, the Court is of the considered opinion that non-communication of the DLC recommendation of the name of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. It may be mentioned that the learned Government Advocate had referred to the judgment by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 177/2020 and has submitted that after 11 years of the DLC and SLC decision, no record could be traced out as to why the DLC decision or the SLC decision was not immediately communicated to the petitioner.

Page No.# 16/16

28) In light of the discussions above, the decision of the SLC in the impugned minutes dated 07.12.2010, thereby rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, as well as the communication dated 16.11.2018 by which SLC minutes dated 07.12.2010 was communicated to the petitioner warrants no interference.

29) Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant