R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties finally.
(2.) PETITIONER is seeking a direction upon the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground. Petitioners case in the writ petition in short is that he is the second son of the deceased employee Jogi Mahto who died in harness on 30.11.1998. Petitioner has twonames -Bhuneshwar Mahto and Kouleshwar Mahto. In the Admit Card of the Matriculation Examination his name is mentioned as Kouleshwar Mahto s/o of Jogi Mahto and his date of birth is mentioned as 12.1.1977. In the service records his other nameBhuneshwar Mahto was written. His father sworn an affidavit on 17.8.1994 (Annexure -2) saying that petitioner -Kouleshwar Mahto is his second son whose name has been wrongly mentioned in service record as Bhuneshwar Mahto. Petitioner applied for his compassionate appointment on 24.2.1999. By letter dated 27.9.2003, the police was requested to enquire about the genuinity of the petitioner. The police in its enquiry report dated 18.10.2003 stated that petitioner -Kouleshwar Mahto is the second son of late Jogi Mahto. Petitioners application was resubmitted, but the same was rejected on 6.7.2007. Therefore, petitioner filed this writ petition.
(3.) THE case of the respondents, inter alia, is that petitioners name nowhere appeared in the service records of the deceased employee and therefore, his claim for compassionate appointment was rightly rejected. Thereafter when his case was taken up by one of the Union, the police was requested to enquire about the genuinity of the petitioner. The police did not confirm the petitioners contention that he was also called as Bhuneshwar Mahto, rather, the police found that the deceased employee had no son with the name of Bhuneshwar Mahto. However, the police reported that the petitioner is second son of the deceased employee. Regarding the said affidavit dated 17.8.1994 (Annexure -2) it is said that it is a manufactured document which will be clear from the other affidavit submitted by the petitioner of the same Notary Public and that such affidavit was never submitted with the respondents and that the petitioner has suppressed material facts from this Court. Learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents, also pointed out regarding the discrepancy in the age appearing in different documents and submitted that there was/is serious dispute about the genunity of the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that in any event, the petitioner has survived for about 10 years by now; and that the respondents are having surplus strength of manpower in its roll; and therefore, the respondents may not be directed to consider petitioners case.;