High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ramesh Chandra Dubey v. D.I.O.S.And Others - WRIT - A No. 19122 of 1985  RD-AH 211 (15 July 2003)
COURT NO. 34
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 19122 OF 1985
Ramesh Chandra Dube ------ Petitioner
District Inspector of Schools,
Jaunpur & ors. ------ Respondents
Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J
Hon'ble D.P.Gupta, J.
(By Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J.)
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.11.1985 (Annex. ''8'), passed by the District Inspector of Schools (respondent no. 1), not granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) by the Committee of Management (respondent no. 2) on compassionate ground.
Petitioner's father Shri Shiv Nath Dube died on 17.12.1981, while in service. Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground, claiming that he possessed the qualification of High School and Intermediate. The Committee of Management (respondent no.2) issued the appointment letter dated 31.10.1985. In pursuance of the said appointment letter, petitioner joined the service. His letter of appointment was sent for approval to the respondent no. 1, which was rejected vide order dated 29.11.1985 on the ground that he was below 18 years of age on the date of initial appointment. Hence this petition.
Earlier compassionate employment was governed by the Government Order dated 12.12.1973 (Annex. ''7'), which also empowers the competent authority to grant relaxation in the age in an appropriate case. Subsequently, it came to be governed by the provisions of Appointment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as Rules 1974), which provided for a minimum age of 18 years and no power of relaxation. However, it contains a clause that application for such an appointment can be made within 5 years from the date of death of the employee.
In the instant case, petitioner was appointed at the age of 17 years and 3 months vide order dated 31.10.1985. But under the said Rules, he could make an application upto 16.12.1986, and had the Committee of Management (respondent no. 2) kept his application pending for few more months and offered the appointment on attaining the age of 18 years, there could have been no illegality. Thus, the issue involved herein remains merely technical.
Be that as it may, this Court vide order dated 13.12.1985 stayed the operation of the order passed by the respondent no.1, dated 29.11.1985, and since then petitioner is working under the interim order. A period of about 18 years has passed. Approval was not granted as he was under-age on the relevant date. In such a fact situation there was no bar for the Committee of Management to appoint the petitioner afresh on attaining the age of 18 years and sending the letter for approval before the respondent no.1 again, and in that situation, perhaps respondent no. 1 had no option but to grant approval.
In this backdrop of the fact situation and to meet the ends of justice, the petition is allowed and the impugned order 29.11.1985 is quashed. However, petitioner shall be treated to have been appointed on attaining the age of 18 years for all purposes.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.