- (1.) The relief claimed by the petitioner in this writ application is for a direction upon the respondents to grant him compassionate appointment on the ground that his father who has remained traceless for more than seven years, is deemed to have died and the petitioner being the dependent is entitled for appointment under the scheme for compassionate appointment as maintained by the respondents.
(2.) From the counter-affidavit, it appears that the petitioner's prayer has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision under the scheme to grant compassionate appointment to the dependent of an employee who has been found traceless. The scheme applies only to such Government employee swho have died in harness.
(3.) The stand taken by the respondents has been refuted by the petitioner by referring to the statement chart purporting to be the decision taken by the District Compassionate Committee in respect of several candidates whose cases for compassionate appointment, were considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that as it would appear from the chart in which the petitioner's name appear at serial no. 25, the petitioner's candidature was also considered, but the same was rejected only on the ground that petitioner did not pass Class-VIII. Learned counsel argues further that if this be the only ground, then the plea taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit that the scheme does not envisage any circumstance where the Government employee is found traceless, would not stand. It is further argued that though, the grounds of rejection, as stated is that the petitioner has not passed class-VIII, yet there are instances where compassionate appointment has been given in the same district by the District Administration to persons who have passed only class-V and have not studied beyond. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been discriminated arbitrarily. Counsel for the petitioner refers in this context to the case of Mahadeo Mahto who was granted compassionate appointment vide decision taken by the respondents on 18th February 2002.;