- (1.)IN present petition the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that: -
"12 (A) Your Lordship be pleased to allow and admit this petition and be please to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or an order or a direction quashing and setting aside the decision of the respondent authority rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment / employment and be pleased to quash the impugned order ANNEXURE A of respondent no. 3 dated 19.4.2012 by which the petitioner has been denied the compassionate employment and be pleased to further direct the respondents to give the compassionate employment / appointment to the petitioner at the appropriate post and place."

(2.)SO far as relevant facts are concerned, the petitioner has averred, inter alia, that: -
3. 1. The petitioner states that the father of the petitioner named Rameshbhai Motibhai Makwana was serving as Arm Head Constable in the Police Department of the State and was lastly posted at Anklav Police Sub Station District Anand.

3.2 The father of the petitioner died on 12.12.2007 during the tenure of service with the respondent Police Department.

3.3 The petitioner is the unmarried daughter of deceased Rameshbhai Motibhai Makwana and by virtue of declared policy of the respondent State, the petitioner was entitled to claim for compassionate employment from the respondent State.

3.4 The petitioner was studying in XII Science on the date of death of the father and the final examination was held in March, 2008. The petitioner has already passed SSC examination by securing 79.29% marks.

3.5 The petitioner had first occasion after the death of father to submit an application by way of intimation on date 10.01.2008 pointing out to the respondent authority that the petitioner is claiming a compassionate employment on the place of her father in the Department.

3.6 The petitioner states that after recovering from the shock of death of the father, the petitioner has submitted the prescribed application along with written request letter for compassionate employment on 11.06.2008 and annexed all the necessary certificates, papers as required under the Rules. The petitioner states that during that course of time the petitioner has passed XII Science examination (HSC) by securing 68.40% marks. The petitioner has also passed the course on computer concept (CCC) from ITI, Tarsali, Vadodara.

3.7 The petitioner states that the respondent competent authority thereafter consumed the long period in considering and deciding the application of the petitioner for compassionate employment and for the first time by letter dated 13.01.2009 the respondent no.2, Director General of Police Office, had intimated that the application of the petitioner has been referred to the respondent no. 4 Selection Committee. It appears from the said letter that the office of the respondent no. 2, had conveyed to the respondent no.4 Selection Committee that the petitioner is not holding the minimum age on the date of application and therefore without any recommendation the said application has been referred to the respondent no. 4, Selection Committee, for appropriate orders. The petitioner was simply intimated that the petitioner's application has been referred to the respondent no. 4 Committee without any further detail.

3.8 The petitioner states that thereafter straight way the intimation / order dated 29.04.2010 was served to the petitioner by the respondent no. 3, Police Superintendent of District Anand intimating the petitioner that the respondent no. 4, Selection Committee, has refused the proposal for giving the Compassionate employment by letter dated 01.04.2010 pursuant to which the Director General of Police by letter dated 08.04.2010 conveyed the said rejection of application of the petitioner to the respondent no. 3 Police Superintendent of Anand and in turn order dated 29.04.2010 has been issued to the petitioner.

(3.)IT has emerged from the above stated facts that the petitioner is unmarried daughter of deceased employee of present respondent and that her father was serving as Armed Head Constable at Anklav Police Station. The petitioner's father died on 12.12.2007 while he was in service.
3.1 On 10.1.2008, the petitioner, being unmarried daughter of the deceased employee, submitted application to the respondent and requested for appointment on compassionate ground.

3.2 since the request made by the petitioner was not in prescribed form and was not supported with relevant details and documents, the petitioner submitted proper application along with requisite details and supporting documents on 11.6.2008.

3.3 According to the petitioner, for almost 6 months the respondent did not give any reply in response to her application and it was after delay of almost 6 months that vide communication dated 13.1.2009 the Director General of Police referred / forwarded the petitioner's application to respondent no.4 i.e. Gujarat Subsidiary Service Selection Committee.

3.4 The petitioner has claimed that vide his letter dated 29.4.2010 the respondent informed the petitioner that her application seeking appointment on compassionate ground is rejected because she had not attained prescribed minimum age (i.e. 18 years) at the time when she submitted application or within time limit (6 months) for submitting such application.

3.5 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the relevant date i.e. on 11.6.2008 when the petitioner submitted her application she had completed 17 years 11 months and 2 day and that therefore the respondents were not justified in rejecting petitioner's application on hyper -technical ground.

3.6 Aggrieved by the said communication / order dated 29.4.2010 the petitioner filed writ petition in December 2011 which was registered as SCA No. 78 of 2012.

3.7 In the said petition the petitioner had prayed for direction against the respondents to grant her appointment on compassionate ground and to set aside the order rejecting her application and to direct the respondents to appoint her on compassionate ground.

3.8 The petitioner has claimed that vide order dated 29.2.2012 the Court partly allowed the said application and set aside the order / communication dated 29.4.2010 and remanded the matter to the respondents for fresh consideration and fresh order.

3.9 The petitioner has claimed that after said order the respondents passed order dated 19.4.2012 and rejected the petitioner's application for the reasons mentioned in the order viz. on the relevant date the petitioner did not fulfill condition regarding minimum age limit and authority does not have any power to relax or waive the prescribed requirement and also on the ground that upon death of the employee (i.e. petitioner's father) family was paid Rs.2,32,125/ - towards gratuity, Rs.53,177/ - towards provident fund and Rs.1,24,539/ - towards group insurance and Rs. 93,450/ - towards leave encashment and that therefore the family cannot be said to be or cannot be considered as family in distress or without sufficient financial assistance. Accordingly the petitioner's application came to be rejected.

3.10 Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed present petition.
The respondents have opposed the petition. Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed affidavit dated 22.2.2013. It the said affidavit it is stated that: -
"6. The deponent submits that father of the petitioner was died on 12.12.2007. The petitioner was minor at the time when the petitioner preferred an application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner earlier application had been rejected on 29.4.2010 on the ground of not possessing minimum age criteria. The petitioner challenged the said before this Hon'ble Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 78 of 2012 and by way of order dated 29.2.2010 this Hon'ble Court directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner as per the claim. Hence deponent reconsider the case of the petitioner and after considering the provisions of law rejected the application of the petitioner by way of order dated 5.4.2012.

7. The deponent submits that family of present petitioner could not be said to be in a very pitiable condition as the family of the deceased had received an amount of Rs. 5,56,191/ - lacs and an amount of Rs. 9296/ - as pension being paid, respondent could not be said to be in harness. Therefore the present appellant authority came to the conclusion that the family of the present petitioner is not in penury condition which is most relevant aspect of giving appointment on compassionate ground therefore the present respondent authority has rightly came to the conclusion that the present petitioner is not entitled for compassionate ground.

9. It is submitted that as per Government Resolution dated 10.3.2000 the main object of the policy is to give relief in financial stringency and to assist the family to cope with unexpected critical situation by giving appointment one member of the deponent family of the employer who dies during the service leaving without any means of livelihood. In the present case the huge amount has been received by the family after the death of the employee and from the said amount family can maintain very well.

15. the deponent submits that looking to the financial aspects the petitioner case did not fall under the pitiable conditions the petitioner received Rs.9296 monthly pension precondition to bring the case under the scheme of "Compassionate Appointment".The very purpose and object of the scheme is to provide immediate succor to the family of an employee that, on his death, may suddenly find itself in a State of destitution. If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief.

17. The deponent submits that the parameters like requirement of minimum age for appointment to a Government post, educational qualifications for the post and passing of departmental examination, as stipulated, after appointment, which from intrinsic art of the Recruitment Rules for appointment and from a core requirement for, which the Government cannot deviate. That besides, the Gujarat Civil Service Classification and Recruitment General Rules also provides as under: -

Rule 8(1) says "subject to the provisions of these rules, no persons shall be appointed to any service or post unless, he possesses qualification, if any, prescribed in the rules relating to the recruitment to such service or post."