Gopal Kumar Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4207 Jhar

                           1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    L.P.A. No.65 of 2022
                            With
                      I.A.No.5910 of 2022
                             ------

Gopal Kumar Ram, age about 21 Yrs S/o-Late Gobind Ram, R/o- Barsotiyabar, P.O. P.S. & District-Koderma, Jharkhand .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment Committee, P.O., P.S. & District-Koderma, Jharkhand.

3. Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma Forest Division, P.O., P.S. & District-Koderma, Jharkhand .... .... Respondents/Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

------

For the Appellant : Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, S.C.-V : Mr. Rishi Chandan, A.C. to S.C.-V

------

ORAL JUDGMENT 05/Dated: 17.10.2022

I.A. No.5910 of 2022

This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section

5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 238 days in

preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard.

3. No counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for

condoning the delay.

4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we

are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause

from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

5. Accordingly, I.A.No.5910 of 2022 is allowed and delay of 238

days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No.65 of 2022

6. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard on

merit today itself.

7. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of

Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated

14.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in

W.P.(S) No.1263 of 2017, by which, the order dated 04.02.2017

passed by the District Compassionate Committee, Koderma,

whereby and whereunder, the prayer for appointment on

compassionate ground to be granted in favour of the writ petitioner

was rejected, has been refused to be interfered with while dismissing

the writ petition.

8. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ

petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-

It is the case of the writ petitioner that his father, namely,

Gobind Ram was a permanent employee of State of Jharkhand and

was working as Gardener at District Forest Office, Koderma. He died

in harness on 05.04.2009. The writ petitioner applied for grant of

compassionate appointment sometime in the year 2013. The said

application was considered by the District Compassionate

Committee on 01.03.2014. The Committee, after taking into

consideration the fact that the writ petitioner was not matriculate at

that stage, his candidature has found not to be considered for grant

of compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has

made fresh application for grant of compassionate appointment, after

completing matriculation on 22.10.2016. However, the said

application was rejected on 04.02.2017 on the ground that his

application is time barred, as the same was filed beyond 5 years

from the date of death of his father, namely, Gobind Ram.

The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the order dated

04.02.2017, has preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1263 of

2017 before this Court by agitating the ground that the rejection of

the claim of the writ petitioner treating the application filed on

22.10.2016, after completing matriculation, cannot be construed to

be a fresh application, rather the same is construed to be in

continuity of the application filed by the writ petitioner in the year

2013. But, without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of

the matter, the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected on the basis

of the application filed on 22.10.2016 treating the said application to

be time barred, which is absolutely unjustified decision.

The learned Single Judge has also not appreciated that aspect

of the matter in right perspective while dismissing the writ petition

and therefore, the instant appeal.

9. Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, learned S.C.-V appearing for the

respondent-State of Jharkhand while defending the order passed by

the learned Single Judge has submitted that the contention which is

being raised on behalf of the writ petitioner to treat the application

filed on 22.10.2016 to be in continuity to the application filed in the

year 2013 cannot be considered to be a fit ground, reason being

that, the moment, application filed by the writ petitioner after death of

his father in the year 2013, whereby his candidature was rejected,

since the writ petitioner was not matriculate which is requisite

eligibility criteria to be considered for appointment on compassionate

ground.

It has been submitted that the moment, application filed in the

year 2013 has been rejected on the ground of non-eligibility of the

writ petitioner, the entire transaction will be said to be closed.

The submission of fresh application submitted in the year 2016,

i.e., after matriculation having been passed, will be treated to be a

fresh application which admittedly was submitted beyond the period

of five years and taking the same, the said application was rejected

vide impugned order dated 04.02.2017.

The learned Single Judge, after taking the aforesaid aspect of

the matter, since has dismissed the writ petition, as such, the same

may not be interfered with.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

documents available on record as also considered the finding

recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.

11. The admitted fact in this case is that the father of the writ

petitioner had died in harness on 05.04.2009. The writ petitioner has

made an application for appointment on compassionate ground

sometime in the year 2013. At that point of time, the writ petitioner

was not matriculate. The minimum requisite criteria for being

appointed to the post require that a candidate must be matriculate.

The application submitted by the writ petitioner for consideration of

his case for appointment on compassionate ground was considered

by the District Compassionate Committee, Koderma on 01.03.2014

but the Committed, after taking into consideration the fact that the

writ petitioner was not matriculate, his candidature was rejected. The

writ petitioner, subsequent thereto, has passed matriculation

examination and as such, has submitted a fresh application on

22.10.2016. The said application was considered but rejected on

04.02.2017 on the ground that the aforesaid application was filed

beyond the period of five years from the date of death of the

employee, namely, Gobind Ram. The said order has been refused to

be interfered with by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the

writ petition against which the present intra-court appeal has been

filed.

12. It is the settled position of law that the consideration made for

appointment on compassionate ground should be strictly on the

basis of the Scheme invoked. Herein, the admitted position is that on

the ground of death of employee in harness, the application is

required to be filed within the period of five years for its consideration

for appointment on compassionate ground.

It is also admitted fact that for appointment to the post, which is

in question herein, the matriculation is the minimum requisite criteria

to be possessed by the candidate for consideration of his case. The

writ petitioner, however, has made an application sometime in the

year 2013, which admittedly was within the period of five years from

the date of death of his father, i.e., 05.04.2009, but his candidature

was rejected being not matriculate. The writ petitioner has not

questioned the said rejection order as the same was rejected by the

District Compassionate Appointment Committee on 01.03.2014,

rather he, after passing matriculation examination has again filed a

fresh application on 22.10.2016.

13. The writ petitioner has taken the ground that the submission of

application on 22.10.2016 is required to be considered as in

continuity of the first application which was made by the writ

petitioner in the year 2013 and by taking the aforesaid aspect of the

matter, the rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner vide order

dated 04.02.2017 on the ground that his application was time barred,

i.e., filed beyond the period of five years, cannot be construed to be

a good ground.

14. This Court requires to refer herein that the application if made

for consideration of a claim, if, decided by the Competent Authority

either way, i.e., in negative or positive, the transaction for the

purpose for which application has been submitted, will be said to be

closed. Herein, the District Compassionate Committee, being the

Competent Authority has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner on

the basis of the application submitted in the year 2013, vide order

dated 01.03.2014, which according to our considered view, will be

said to have lost its force on 01.03.2014, by which, the final decision

was taken by the Competent Authority, i.e., the District

Compassionate Appointment Committee.

The writ petitioner, however, has submitted a fresh application

on 22.10.2016 after having passed the matriculation examination.

The application which was filed on 22.10.2016, according to our

considered view, cannot be construed to be in continuity to the

application filed in the year 2013 since, the application filed in the

year 2013 has already been given logical end by taking final decision

by the District Compassionate Committee vide order dated

01.03.2014.

Therefore, the application dated 22.10.2016 since was filed

after five years from the date of death of father of the writ petitioner

occurred on 05.04.2009, which will be considered to be fresh

application which is beyond the period as provided under the

Scheme for making appointment on compassionate ground.

15. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the argument which

has been advanced on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner to treat

the application submitted on 22.10.2016 to be in continuation to the

application submitted in the year 2013, is having no force,

accordingly, the same is rejected.

16. This Court, after having discussed the fact in entirety as above,

has considered the order passed by the learned Single Judge and

found therefrom that the learned Single Judge has considered the

aforesaid aspect of the matter in detail as would appear from

paragraph-6 & 7, wherein, the fact about application submitted on

22.10.2016 has been considered to have been filed beyond the

period of five years. The learned Single has further came to the

conclusive finding that once the claim is dismissed and rejected on

the ground of having no requisite minimum education qualification,

the same cannot be revived, as the writ petitioner had accepted the

said rejection and the same had not been challenged at any point of

time.

17. This Court, after taking into consideration the aforesaid

conclusive finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the

impugned order and as per the discussion made hereinabove, is of

the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single

Judge requires no interference.

18. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

A.F.R.-Rohit/-