- (1.) The matter has been heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. There is no complaint about any audio and visual quality. I.A.No.4069 of 2020 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 55 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Heard. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, I.A.No.4069 of 2020 is allowed and delay of 55 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.642 of 2018 The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 19.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.946 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the writ Court has declined to interfere with the order dated 19.08.2011, by which, the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.
(2.) The brief facts of the case required to be referred herein read as hereunder:- The father of the writ petitioner was working as mate (OTP) under the respondent authorities, died in harness on 14.12.2002. The writ petitioner had approached by filing an application before the respondent authority for his appointment on compassionate ground vide his representation dated 05.04.2005. The respondent authorities had issued a communication vide letter dated 30.04.2005 seeking some more information from the writ petitioner and directed to submit certain documents. The writ petitioner had submitted all the required documents along with an affidavit sworn by his mother to the effect that she had no objection if the applicant is appointed on compassionate ground. The respondent authorities had considered the application but rejected vide impugned order dated 19.08.2011, against which, the writ petition has been filed by conferring the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the same has been dismissed on the ground that the authorities have considered the case of the writ petitioner on the basis of comparative merit of the candidates and for calculating relative merit point, financial status of the family and the movable and immovable properties of the family have been taken into consideration, in which, the case of the writ petitioner has found not tenable in comparison to the others, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal.
(3.) Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner is totally on frivolous ground as if the case of the writ petitioner would have been considered for the year 2005, the year on which the application for appointment on compassionate ground was filed, the matter would have been different but it is the slackness on the part of the respondent authorities in not considering the application in the year 2005 rather it has been considered in the Month of March, 2008 and therefore, the impugned decision of the authority cannot be said to be justified which fact has not been considered by the learned Single Judge.;