- (1.) HAVING heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the claim of the present petitioner in this case is that her candidature for compassionate appointment was discarded only on the ground for checking the standard VII certificate. Respondent no. 3 had sent the certificate, presented by the petitioner of standard VII for checking. After sending the same for checking, respondent no. 3 has not checked anything whether the concerned authority has properly verified or not? Three years period have already been over. It appears that respondent no. 3 is totally a lethargic employee of the State of Jharkhand. He has no regard for execution of policy laid down by the sovereign body i.e. State of Jharkhand. Employee of the State of Jharkhand i.e. respondent no. 3 must have shaded such type of indifferent approach. The purpose of the compassionate appointment has been lost sight of by respondent no. 3. It also appears that respondent no. 3 is not at all aware of the compassionate appointment scheme. It also appears that respondent no. 3 has not even taken care for filing accurate affidavit and point out this Court that under which clause of which policy, the clearance of standard VII is a requirement and whenever there is a compassionate appointment to be done, there can be some deviation in such type of requirements.
(2.) IT is also contended by learned counsel for the respondents that a letter has been written by some clerk or head clerk, which is annexed with the counter affidavit and, therefore, there is statutory requirement of clearance of Standard VII, for compassionate appointment. This contention is absolutely false, frivolous and dehors the policy floated by the State of Jharkhand. Policy of the State can not be altered, amended or modified by the author of that letter, which is annexed with the counter affidavit. Policy is made by the sovereign body i.e. State of Jharkhand. This aspect, ought to have been respected properly by respondent no. 3. There is a total defiance of policy by respondent no. 3. He sends the standard VII certificate for checking and, thereafter, sitting silently, for thirty six long months. In view of these facts, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure 5 to the memo of the present petition) dated 9th June, 2006. I also hereby direct respondent no. 2 to held an inquiry upon respondent no. 3 because of the aforesaid totally indifference, lethargic, casual and callous approach and having no respect for the policy laid down by the sovereign body. Whenever, any benevolent scheme or policy is to be implemented, it must be implemented by officers of the State promptly. If lethargic or indifferent approach is shown, by the officer, it will frustrate the goal to be achieved by the said benevolent scheme or policy. Inquiry shall be completed by respondent no. 2 upon respondent no. 3 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. I also hereby direct respondent no. 2 to present the inquiry report before this Court, in this matter. The impugned order is quashed because the same is totally dehors the policy as well as no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner, which is a bare minimum requirement. I also hereby direct respondent no. 2 that afresh decision will be taken for compassionate appointment of petitioner by some another Deputy Commissioner, which may be deputed by respondent no. 2, but, not at least by respondent no. 3. I also hereby direct respondent no. 2 to take a fresh decision upon compassionate appointment application, preferred by the present petitioner or to treat this petition as a representation, which will be decided by any responsible officer appointed by respondent no. 2, but not by the present respondent no. 3, within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court.
(3.) THE petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent, with no order as to costs.;