MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL,J. - (1.) The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellants assailing the order dated 5.8.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent-petitioner seeking quashment of the communication dated 24.4.2012 with a further direction to the appellants to grant him compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, has been allowed.
(2.) The facts in nutshell are that father of the petitioner namely Shri Kana Ram Raigar, employed as Welder Gr.I with the appellant-Corporation, died on 22.11.2010 leaving behind his widow, four sons; the respondent being eldest and three daughters. The respondent possessing the qualification of B.A., LL.B and M.A. with certificate of Bachelor of Journalism (Mass Communication) submitted an application dated 13.12.2011 with the appellants seeking appointment on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector on compassionate ground under The Appointment on Compassionate Ground to the Dependents of the Deceased Employee of the RSRTC Regulations, 2010. The requisite eligibility, at the time the respondent applied for the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, was graduation degree and therefore, the respondent was qualified for appointment on such post. However, the appellant-Corporation vide its communication dated 16.3.2012, offered the respondent appointment on the post of Driver, Conductor and Artisan Gr.III which required licence for the post of Driver/Conductor and diploma certificate in ITI for the post of Artisan Gr.III. Since, the respondent had none, the appellants vide their letter dated 24.4.2012, rejected his application for compassionate appointment. His claim for appointment on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector was not considered as the appellants have, vide order dated 30.1.2012, deleted the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector from Regulation 5 of the Regulations of 2010. Assailing the aforesaid rejection, the respondent contended that on the day he has moved the application seeking compassionate appointment, the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector was included in Regulation 5 of the Regulations of 2010 and thus was available for appointment on compassionate basis and he was entitled for appointment as he possessed the requisite eligibility. It was also submitted that under similar circumstances, the appellants have extended appointment to one Shri Umesh Nagar on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector vide order dated 2.12.2011 on compassionate ground as his father Shri Laxmi Narain has died on 9.10.2010. It was also submitted that the appellant-Corporation has vide order dated 30.7.2013, again included the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector in Regulation-5 of the Regulations of 2010. Taking into consideration the conspectus of the facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and the appellants were directed to consider respondent's case for compassionate appointment and accord him appointment on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector within two months from the date of submission of copy of the order.
(3.) Assailing the order dated 5.8.2014, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that on the day the application submitted by the respondent seeking compassionate appointment was considered, the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector was unavailable under Regulation 5 of the Regulations of 2010 and the respondent could not have been appointed on that post and therefore, he was offered appointment on the posts available i.e. Driver, Conductor and Artisan Gr.III for which the respondent did not possess the requisite eligibility and hence no fault could have been found by the learned Single Judge in the letter dated 24.4.2012 rejecting the application of the petitioner. He further contended that case of the respondent for appointment on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector could not have been considered even after inclusion of this post in Regulation-5 vide order dated 30.7.2013 as the new eligibility prescribed for the post was not possessed by the respondent. He, therefore, prayed that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside.;