Compassionate appointment cannot be offered to minors as per the applicable circulars -Jharkhand high court
Compassionate appointment cannot be offered to minors as per the applicable circulars -Jharkhand high court A petition challenging the decision in Memo No.173 dated 23.05.2011 was rejected by a single judge bench of  HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY in the case of Rabindra Murmu versus. The state of Jharkhand and Ors. (W.P.(S) No. 5363 of 2011) The facts of the case are The father of the petitioner died in harness on 25.07.1995 working and posted as Assistant Teacher, Primary School and it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted his application for compassionate appointment as back as on 02.05.2000 which was within 5 years but he was directed by the respondent no.3 to submit the original educational certificate, and the application was not entertained also on the ground that the same was not routed through the proper channel and the application was rejected as time-barred. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of rejection of his application for compassionate appointment on the ground that the same suffers from an apparent error on record because the petitioner had already applied on 02.05.2000. the application on 02.05.2000 was within the prescribed period of 5 years and otherwise, the petitioner was entitled to a compassionate appointment and therefore, the impugned order rejecting the application for compassionate appointment is fit to be set aside. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state opposed the prayer and has submitted that the initial application for compassionate appointment dated 02.05.2000 was neither complete nor through proper channel and accordingly, the same was never entertained and accordingly not placed before the appropriate authority for consideration and it should be submitted as per the provision of law. It was also submitted that the date of birth has been indicated as 17.09.1984 and accordingly, the petitioner was 16 years on 02.05.2000 and no minor can be offered a compassionate appointment and he did not become major within 5 years from the date of death of his father i.e., from 25.07.1995 and therefore, otherwise also, the petitioners not entitled for compassionate appointment. the learned counsel relied on the judgment of L.P.A. No.438 of 2018 (The State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Bahabiti Marandi) in which it was decided that no minor can be offered compassionate appointment under the Circulars issued by the State Government and applicable in the State of Jharkhand. After hearing from both sides the court finds out that the original application for compassionate appointment dated 02.05.2000 was not only incomplete on account of want of essential documents, but was also improperly filed as the same was not routed through the District Education Officer, and there is no illegality in rejecting the application and on the date of the initial application, the petitioner was still a minor and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment as admittedly, no minor can be offered a compassionate appointment and from the above findings there are no merits in the application and the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 53611 Rabindra Murmu son of late Som Murmu resident of village Kasiadanga P.O. and P.S. Maheshpur District Pakur 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Department Government of Jharkhand having office at Project Building P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa Town and District Ranchi … … 2. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman District Compassionate Appointment Committee Pakur P.O. P.S. and District Pakur. 3. The District Superintendent of Education Pakur having office at P.O. P.S. and District Pakur … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY Mr. Manoj Tandon Advocate Mr. Rohit Advocate For the Petitioner For the Respondents Through Video Conferencing Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon learned counsel appearing on 2. Heard Mr. Rohit learned counsel appearing on behalf of behalf of the petitioner. the respondents State. The present petition has been filed challenging the decision contained in Memo No.173 dated 23.05.2011 so far as it relates to the petitioner whereby the application of compassionate appointment of this petitioner has been rejected as time barred. The foundational facts of the case are not in dispute. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 25.07.1995 working and posted as Assistant Teacher Primary School in the District of Pakur. The genealogical table of the petitioner was prepared on 12.09.1995. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted his application for compassionate appointment as back as on 02.05.2000 which was within the period of 5 years but on 26.07.2010 the petitioner was directed by the respondent no.3 to submit the original educational certificate and the application was not entertained also on the ground that the same was not routed through the proper channel. The petitioner had filed a representation dated 04.10.2010 indicating that he had also moved earlier for compassionate appointment. The educational qualification of the petitioner was submitted on 05.01.2011. On 23.05.2011 the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected as time barred by mentioning that the petitioner had filed the application only on 01.10.2010. From perusal of the records of this case it appears from Annexure 8 which is said to be the application form for compassionate appointment filed on 02.05.2000 the date of birth of the petitioner has been declared as 17.09.1984 which is not in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of rejection of his application compassionate appointment on the ground that the same suffers from apparent error on record in view of the fact that the petitioner had already submitted the application on 02.05.2000 which is contained in Annexure 8 of the writ petition. The learned counsel submits that the application on 02.05.2000 was within the prescribed period of 5 years and otherwise the petitioner was entitled for compassionate appointment and therefore the impugned order rejecting the application for compassionate appointment is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the initial application for compassionate appointment dated 02.05.2000 was neither complete nor through proper channel and accordingly the same was never entertained and accordingly not placed before the appropriate authority for consideration and the said improper application cannot be said to be an application for compassionate appointment in the eyes of law. He submits that the application is to be submitted as per the provision of the law. 8. He has further submitted that the application for compassionate appointment was subsequently filed on 01.10.2010 and at that time the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment had become time barred. Learned counsel has also submitted that though the initial application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was not entertained but the date of birth has been indicated as 17.09.1984 and accordingly the petitioner was 16 years on 02.05.2000 and no minor can be offered compassionate appointment. He has also submitted that the petitioner did not become major within 5 years from the date of death of his father i.e. from 25.07.1995 and therefore otherwise also the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel has also referred to a judgement passed by this Court in L.P.A. No.438 of 2018 decided on 16.09.2020 to submit that no minor can be offered compassionate appointment under the Circulars issued by the State Government and applicable in the State of Jharkhand. In response the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has not been passed on the ground that the petitioner was not qualified so far as the age is concerned but the application has been rejected only on account of being time barred. However it is not in dispute that if the date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 17.09.1984 as declared by the petitioner himself in Annexure 8 the petitioner was a minor even upon expiry of five years from the date of death of his father. It is further not in dispute that the application for compassionate appointment has to be filed within a period of five years from the date of death. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court finds that the original application for compassionate appointment dated 02.05.2000 was not only incomplete on account of want of essential documents but was also improperly filed as the same was not routed through the District Education Officer Pakur and accordingly communication of the same was given to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.07.2010 as contained in Annexure 3 and the application was not entertained. There is no illegality on the part of the respondents in refusing to entertain the application dated 02.05.2000. Otherwise also on the date of the initial application the petitioner was still a minor and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment as admittedly no minor can be offered appointment. In the judgment passed by this Court in L.P.A. No.438 of 2018 it has been categorically held by a detailed judgement that no minor can be offered compassionate appointment under the Circulars applicable in the State of Further the petitioner continued to be minor even upon expiry of 5 years from the date of death of his father i.e. 25.07.1995. The petitioner thereafter filed another application on 01.10.2010 and the said application was rightly rejected as time barred. In view of the aforesaid findings there being no merits in the present writ petition which is hereby dismissed. 14. Pending interlocutory application if any stands closed. 