- (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner Jagmohan Mahto is the son of late Jhuba Mahto, a Majdoor working in Garrison Engineer/ MES, Ranchi, who died in harness on 21.04.1996. The petitioner being son of the deceased employee applied for his compassionate appointment on compassionate ground on 19.061996. He was informed by issue of Annexure -3 dated 26.02.2001 by the Respondents that his case for compassionate appointment on the post of Mazdoor is under consideration and his name at serial No. 138. The grievance of the petitioner is that subsequently he received a letter as contained in Annexure -4 dated 20.08.2002 whereby he was informed that his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that there were more deserving cases than the petitioner and only few vacancies were available and as such the case of the petitioner was not recommended by the B.O.O for appointment on compassionate ground. From perusal of Annexure -4 i.e. order of rejection of the claim of the petitioner, it appears that in the said order it has been stated that the competent authority was of the view that the case of the petitioner does not deserve employment assistance on compassionate ground in view of the fact that his case was considered along with other candidates and they were found to be more deserving. It has also been stated in the said order that need for immediate assistance by way of compassionate employment is tide over the emergency and crisis is lacking in the case of the petitioner since the death of the government servant occurred on 21.04.1996 i.e. six years and four months ago.
(3.) AFTER having heard the parties I am of the view that the order as contained in Annexure -4 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground by the Respondent is wholly illegal, unwarranted and unjustified for the following reasons: - (a)Admittedly the father of the petitioner died on 21.04.1996 and the application for appointment on compassionate ground was made on 19. 06.1996 i.e. within a period of two month, whereas the Respondents had taken about six years time in rejecting the claim of the petitioner as it appears from the order as contained in Annexure -4 dated 20.08.2002. Therefore, in my view on the ground of delay of about six years the claim of the petitioner could not and should not have been rejected. (b)So far as the other ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner that the cases of other candidates were considered along with the case of the petitioner and those candidates were found to be more deserving, as has been mentioned in the impugned order. Neither in the impugned order of rejection nor in the counter affidavits any statement has been made as to who were those candidates whose cases were considered to be more deserving than the petitioner and why they were given priority over the petitioner. Therefore, in my view the order as contained in Annexure -4 also suffers from vagueness and absence of justifiable reasons. ;