Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S)No.3826 of 2016 Ranjeet Kumar Sharma. … ... ...Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. + P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman of District Establishment Committee, Sahibganj, P.O+P.S.+Dist. Sahebganj, Jharkhand.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj, P.O.+P.S.+ Dist. Sahebganj, Jharkhand. … … ...Respondents --------- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner: Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Kumar No.3, Advocate. --------- C.A.V. on 05.05.2017 : Pronounced on 11.08.2017 --------- Dr. S.N.Pathak,J.
The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for appointment on compassionate ground on grade III post keeping the pay protected and for any other writ, order, direction in the facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with law. Factual Matrix 2. The father of the petitioner was posted as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Nageshwarbag, Rajmahal, who died in harness on 08.09.2000. Soon after the death of father, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner was placed before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. The meeting of committee was held on 25.8.2004 and a decision was taken by the committee to appoint the petitioner on the post of Asst. Teacher.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he ought to have been appointed as Assistant Teacher in view of the recommendation made by the Committee but the same was not materialized as because of the Rules (Jharkhand Primary Schools Appointment Rules, 2002) framed for the appointment of Assistant Teacher by the government of Jharkhand which strictly prohibited that no teacher will be appointed on compassionate ground but de hors the rules several teachers have been appointed. Subsequently after coming of the Rules again District Compassionate Committee held its meeting on 2. 05.07.2005 and a decision was taken to appoint the recommended candidates at Sl. No. 2,3,16,19,20,21,2324 of the list dated 25.8.2004 on either III grade or IV grade. It was also recommended and ensured that appointments are given in due time. In compliance of the recommendation dated 19.07.2015 respondent No.4 recommended the name of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground vide letter No.1124 dated 22.08.2005.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that as he was in dire need of employment after death of his father, he accepted the offered IV grade post along with many other persons which has also been brought on record.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that from the same consideration list dated 25.08.2004 of the candidates many persons were appointed in grade III post even having lesser qualification than the petitioner namely Mrs. Asha Murmu, Bipin Kumar Singh and Imtiaz Ahmad. Though the petitioner made several representations for appointment on grade III post but the same was not considered though aforesaid persons have been considered having lesser qualification and hence this writ petition has been preferred.
5. Mr. Rishikesh Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of respondents are illegal, arbitrarily and discriminatory on the ground that persons having lesser qualification have been appointed on class III post and petitioner has been discriminated. The petitioner further submits that respondents would be restricted from classifying the similarly situated without any intelligible differentia and as such he is entitled to be appointed on grade III post as other having similar educational qualification have been appointed.
6. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed.
7. Mr. Sunil Singh, J.C. to S.C.Mines vehemently opposes the contention of the writ petitioner and submits at the outset that this writ petition should be dismissed in limine as the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court after more than 10 years of his appointment under compassionate appointment scheme and the delay has not been explained by the petitioner. The petitioner has been appointed as per the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Sahibganj and in view of the circular issued by the Karmik Prasasnik Sudhar Department, Bihar, Patna as contained in letter No. 2067/90-13293 dated 05.10.1991 and letter 3. No. 454 dated 13.03.1999, the Regional Educational Deputy Director approved the appointment of the writ petitioner to the post of “peon” (class IV post) vide letter No.1304 dated 29.9.2005 and subsequently he joined on the said post justifying the order of appointment.
8. Learned Counsel argued that the respondent-authorities have acted as per the Govt. circular and guideline and, therefore, appointment of the petitioner has rightly been given to the post of class IV grade. Learned Counsel further submits that there is no discrimination on the part of the respondents and not a single person having lesser qualification than the petitioner has been appointed on class III post. The case of Mr.Imtiaz Ahmad is distinguishable as he has been appointed by the order of this Hon'ble Court.
9. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 108 “Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others Vrs. T.T.Murali Babu” and (2015) 1 SCC347“State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vrs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors.” .
10. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner accepted appointment on class IV post on 22.08.2005 itself. The petitioner has moved this Hon'ble Court in the year 2016 i.e. after 11 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “ Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others Vrs. T.T. Murali Babu”, reported in (2014) 4 S.C.C. 108 held: “while protecting rights of citizens should simultaneously keep itself alive to primary principle that when aggrieved person, without adequate reason approaches court belatedly, whether his lis should be entertained or not- Delay comes in way of equity.”
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of “Rajasthan SRTC v. Revat Singh” reported in (2015) 11 SCC802has held: “Even though higher post was applied for on compassionate ground, when a lower post offered considering qualification and eligibility as per rules was accepted by the candidate, he cannot claim higher post.”
12. In the instant case, the petitioner has accepted the post of peon and as such after 11 years it is not open to raise claim for appointment on compassionate ground in class III post.
4. 13. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the writ petition. There is no error committed by the respondents. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. [Dr. S.N.Pathak,J.] P.K.S.