M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM,J. - (1.) RAM Janam Paswan, the appellant herein, was appointed as Chowkidar on compassionate ground by the order dated 26.7.2003 as he was the son of the deceased employee -Chowkidar. Later the same was cancelled and the respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, step brother of; the petitioner -appellant, was appointed in that post by the order dated 16.8.2005. The said order appointing respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, and cancelling the appellants, Ram Janam Paswans appointment, has been challenged by the petitioner -appellant before this Court in W.P (S) No. 6664/2005. The learned Single Judge dismissed the same on 23.3.2006. Hence, this L.P.A.
(2.) THE short facts, which are required for disposal of this appeal, are as follows: The petitioner -appellant is the son of late Banarasi Dusadh, who was working as Chowkidar in Nagar Untari Police Station. He died in harness on 11.4.1994. Krishna Ram, respondent No. 4, claiming that he is the son of the first wife of the deceased employee, applied for compassionate appointment on 10.5.1994. In the meantime, the petitioner -appellant also claiming himself to be the son of the second wife of the deceased employee, filed application seeking for appointment on compassionate ground. The District Compassionate Committee by the order dated 25.9.1997, held that the petitioner -appellant is entitled to be appointed as Chowkidar on compassionate ground and Krishna Ram, respondent No. 4, the step brother of the petitioner -appellant, would be entitled to monetary benefits accrued on account of the death of the deceased employee on the basis of the concession given by petitioner that he has no objection for the same. Aggrieved by that, the said Krishna Ram (respondent No. 4) challenged the same in CWJC No. 3437/1997R, claiming that he alone is entitled for the appointment as he is the legitimate child of the first wife of the deceased employee. After hearing the counsel for both parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition (CWJC No. 3437/1997R) by the order dated 10.5.1999, holding that the order passed by the District Compassionate Committee is not valid as the order was passed merely on the basis of concession given by the Ram Janam Paswan and the claim of the respondent No. 4 that he is entitled to the appointment as he is the legitimate son of the deceased employee has not at all been considered. The learned Single Judge further remanded the matter directing the District Compassionate Committee to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by this Court. Thereafter the respondent No. 4 filed several representations to the Committee to decide the matter as directed by the High Court; but there was no response. Since no action was taken, contempt application had been filed by him. During the pendency of the contempt matter, the authorities passed the order on 16.8.2005 appointing the respondent No. 4 and cancelling the appointment given to the petitioner appellant. Challenging the same, the petitioner -appellant filed writ petition, W.P.(S) No. 6664/2005. The same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 23.3.2006 mainly on the ground that the order impugned passed by the authority on 16.8.2005 was under the direction given by this Court in the earlier writ petition in CWJC No. 3437/1997R and as the said order passed by the Single Judge has not been challenged by the petitioner -appellant and has attained finality, the validity of the order passed in CWJC No. 3437/1997R cannot be questioned. Challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge, this L.P.A has been filed. Mr. R.K. Katariya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner -appellant, would make the following contentions, assailing the order dated 23.3.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6664/2005 : (A) After the death of the appellants farther in harness, the whole family consisting of widow mother, the appellant and other members of the family were living in hardship. To tide over the crisis of the family, the petitioner was allowed to work as Chowkidar on the vacancy caused by the death of his father. The District Compassionate Committee in a meeting held on 25.9.1997 recommended the appointment of the appellant on compassionate ground as he has fulfilled all the criteria laid down by the State Government. Again when a special meeting of the District Compassionate Committee was held on 18.7.2003, appellants case was recommended for appointment as Chowkidar on compassionate ground. (B) In the meantime, respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, filed writ petition, CWJC No. 3437/1997R, challenging the order of appointment made in favour of the appellant. The learned Single Judge passed an order on 10.5.1999 remitting the matter for fresh decision taking into consideration the eligibility and not on the basis of concession. The respondent No. 4 filed contempt application for non -compliance of the order dated 10.5.1999. The District Compassionate Committee hurriedly held the meeting on 16.8.2005 and cancelled the appointment of the appellant arbitrarily and gave appointment to respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, even though the said Krishna Ram was arrested for serious allegation in a case registered under Section 307 I.P.C and was sent to judicial custody from 15.5.2005 onwards. (C) The order dated 16.8.2005 cancelling the appointment of the appellant and ordering the appointment of respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, as Chowkidar, did not take into consideration the eligibility criteria, the pendency of the criminal case and bad antecedent of respondent No. 4, Krishana Ram. (D) The order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3437/1997R is also per incurium as it has not taken into consideration the various decisions of the Supreme Court and other judgments of High Courts with regard to eligibility criteria. Therefore, the order dated 16.8.2005 passed by the authority concurred is liable to be cancelled and the order of appointment issued in his favour has to be restored.
(3.) THE gist of the reply made by the counsel for the respondent No. 4 is as follows: (I) Krishna Ram, respondent No. 4, is admittedly the only son of the first wife of the deceased employee. The will executed by the father of respondent No. 4 also indicates that the deceased employee father had stated therein that the respondent No. 4 is the sole successor of all the properties and other things belonged to him. The District Compassionate Committee, ignoring the rightful claim of the respondent No. 4, came to the conclusion that the petitioner - appellant is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground and the respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, is entitled to the monetary benefits accrued to the credit of the deceased employee. (II) The respondent No. 4 challenged the decision taken by the District Compassionate Committee in CWJC No. 3437/1997R and ultimately, Honble Single Judge, in the said writ petition, set aside the decision dated 25.9.1997 of the Committee as the same is merely based upon the concession given by the appellant and not on the basis of eligibility criteria land remitted the matter for fresh decision. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, made representations to the Police Authorities and there was no response upto 2003. Therefore, he was constrained to file contempt in Cont. (C) Case No. 424/2063 for non -compliance of the order dated 10.5.1999 passed in CWJC No. 3437/1999R. During the pendency of contempt application, the order has been passed on 16.8.2005 by the authorities appointing respondent No. 4 and canceling the appointment of the appellant. In pursuance of the said order, the contempt proceeding was dropped. (III) Since the order dated 16.8.2005 appointing respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, on compassionate ground is in compliance of the order dated 10.51999 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3437/1999R and the said order has not been challenged before the appropriate forum by the appellant, it (order dated 10.5.1999) has attained finality. Therefore, the decision taken by the competent authority for appointment of the respondent No. 4, Krishna Ram, in pursuance of the direction given by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be illegal arid therefore, the learned Single Judge is correct in affirming the order dated 16.8.2005 and in dismissing the writ petition. (IV) The criminal case filed against respondent No. 4 was a false case and it was falsely lodged against respondent No. 4 in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by the vested interest in order to prevent the respondent No. 4 from getting the appointment on compassionate ground.;