- (1.) The appellants, 14 in number, filed a joint writ petition (CWP No.7090/2010) stating the grievance that though they were accorded appointment on compassionate grounds by the respondent Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. ('the Nigam') but on the post of Helper, which is lower than the post of LDC/Consumer Complaint Clerk they were entitled to; and were discriminated against female candidates.
(2.) The learned Single Judge of this Court has found no case worth consideration with reference to the principles that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right; and further, with reference to the fact that the petitioners accepted the appointment on the post of Helper with open eyes and now, they were seeking appointment on higher post after a long lapse of time. The learned Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petition with a short order dated 19.07.2013 which reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the forteen employees of the respondent Jodhpur Vidyut Viteran Nigam Ltd who are working on the post of Helper. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although they were possessing qualification for the post of LDC/Consumer Complaint Clerk, they were provided appointment on lower post of helper under the dependant Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment was made on a lower post while discriminating their case on illegal premises that higher post is only made for women candidates and not for the male candidates, therefore, against the discriminatory action of the respondents, they are entitled for direction to the respondent to provide appointment on a higher post which is LDC/Consumer Complaint Clerk. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that discrimination has been practicized by the respondent, therefore, after lapse of ten years or more, still petitioners are having right for appointment on higher post because their case was discriminated on illegal grounds. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that appointment made on compassionate ground is only to meet out the financial crisis of deceased employees that appointment (sic.) and appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right because it is a mercy given by the employer by way of giving complete goodbye to the procedure laid down under the Rules. Hereinthiscase, as per counsel for the respondents, petitioner cannot claim appointment on higher post. The appointment can be given on availability of vacancies as per requirements of respondent employer. The petitioners with open eyes accepted the appointment and are working for last many years, therefore, at this stage, contention of petitioner that there is right created in their favour is totally unfounded. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'State of Rajasthan Vs. Chandra Narain Verma, 1994 2 SCC 752 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right so also it is choice of employer to provide appointment as per guidelines and rules and availability of vacancies. Hereinthiscase, the petitioners accepted the appointment with open eyes on the post of Helper and now the petitioners are claiming appointment on higher post after a lapse of so many years, therefore, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Narain Verma , no interference is called for in this writ petition, therefore, the writ petition is hereby dismissed."
(3.) Seeking to question the order aforesaid, the writ-petitioners have filed this intra-court appeal. It has strenuously been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that at the time of affording compassionate appointment, the respondents withheld the factual position that the appellants were eligible for appointment on the post of LDC/Consumer Complaint Clerk by conveying to them that such a post was meant only for female candidates. It is submitted that on one hand, the respondents would take the stand that post of LDC/Consumer Complaint Clerk is only for female candidates who are not considered appropriate for the post of Technical Helper but on the other hand, they had been affording appointment to the female candidates on the post of Technical Helper too. The copies of orders dated 02.07.2012 and 06.03.2013 are sought to be referred in this regard with an additional affidavit Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the record, we are at one with the learned Single Judge that the writ petition being totally bereft of substance was required to be dismissed.;