- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents on 17.5.2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to join the duties in pursuance of order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex. 1) passed by Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 3) by which the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on compassionate ground after death of his father.
(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: i) That the petitioner's father was appointed with the respondents and he died while in service. THEreafter the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment after death of his father. Note: It is strange that date of death of the deceased has not been mentioned in the writ petition. ii) Further case of the petitioner is that through order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex. 1) passed by the respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar), the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on compassionate ground. iii) Further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex.1) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 3), the petitioner was not allowed to join the services on the ground that he did not fulfill the requisite qualification as certificate of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Annex. 2) was not found equivalent to the Secondary Examination of the State of Rajasthan. THEreafter the petitioner approached the respondents. However his grievance had not been redressed. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and reply of the respondents may be summarized as under: i) That the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. ii) That no doubt order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex.1) was passed by the respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police) whereby the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable for two years on probation, but order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex.1) was cancelled by order dtd. 16.8.88 (Annex.R/1) passed by the respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 3) on the ground that the petitioner was found under-height. iii) That since the order dtd. 16.8.88 (Annex.R/1) has not been challenged by the petitioner, therefore, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. iv) That after the order dtd. 16.8.88 (Annex.R/1) was passed by the respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar), the petitioner submitted a representation on 7.12.96 for seeking appointment on compassionate ground i.e. after a gap of 8 years. v) That thereafter the petitioner vide letter dtd. 9.1.96 (Annex.R/2) issued by the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 3) was called upon to submit his case yet again for grant of compassionate appointment as per the Rules. vi) A perusal of letter dtd. 9.1.96 (Annex.R/2) reveals that six formalities were to be completed by the petitioner. vii) Thereafter the petitioner submitted his case again and his case was not considered because the petitioner submitted the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Annex.2) which according to the petitioner was equivalent to 10th class, but that certificate was not recognized by the State of Rajasthan and, therefore, the same was not considered for granting appointment to the petitioner on the compassionate ground. viii) That through another letter dtd. 2.1.97, the petitioner was asked to submit his case in detail, but he did not submit his case. ix) That letter dtd. 24.6.2000, 11.7.2000 and 27.2.2002 were sent to the petitioner, but he did not send the relevant papers. Hence, no case is made out and the writ petition be dismissed. Heard and perused the record. In this case, the date of death of father of the petitioner has not been mentioned, but since the petitioner was given appointment through order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex.1) passed by the respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, meaning thereby that father of the petitioner died before 10.8.88. There is also no dispute on the point that in pursuance of order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex.1), the petitioner was not allowed to join the duties and, through order dtd. 16.8.88 (Annex.R/1) issued by the respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar) the order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex.1) was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was under-height.
(3.) THERE is also no dispute on the point that the petitioner has suppressed the order dtd. 16.8.88 (Annex.R/1) passed by respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar) from this Court and it cannot be presumed that this order was not communicated to the petitioner. From the reply of the respondents it further appears that after passing of cancellation order dtd. 16.8.88 (Annex.R/1), after gap of 8 years, the petitioner further pursued his matter through letter dtd. 7.12.96. Whatsoever may be the reason, the petitioner was not given compassionate appointment though the case of the respondents is that many a times, letters were sent to him to complete the formalities, but the petitioner did not do so. Now the question which arises for consideration is in the facts and circumstances of the case, just mentioned above, the petitioner is entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not in respect of compassionate appointment. ;