Jharkhand High Court
Gopal Kumar Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 October, 2022
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Chief Justice, Sujit Narayan Prasad
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. 2
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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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/-