1- Challenging the action of the respondents in refusing appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds and further contending that the appointment order issued to the petitioner in this regard on 3.12.1998 is not served till date and, therefore, petitioner is entitled to join duties in pursuance to this order of appointment dated 3.12.1998, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It may be taken note of that the writ petition was filed on 28.4.2006.
2- Petitioner's father Late Shankar Lal Koshta was working in Matsya Udyog Department as a Driver, and was posted under the administrative control of Joint Director, Jabalpur. He died in harness on 28.6.98. According to the petitioner, after his father's death, petitioner being the eldest son, his mother submitted applications Annexures P/2 and P/3, seeking compassionate appointment. It was stated that the family is in great financial crisis and, therefore, the appointment be granted. According to the petitioner, the departmental authorities issued a letter Annexure P/5 on 26.11.98, sought for information regarding appointment of the petitioner. However, nothing was done and, therefore, the Director of Matsya Udyog wrote a letter to the Joint Director, Jabalpur on 22.11.2002 with regard to the compassionate appointment of the petitioner. Annexure P/6 is the said letter. According to the petitioner, when nothing was done and when he visited the office of the respondents, it was informed that he has already been appointed on 3.12.1998, but as he did not join it is stated that his appointment has been cancelled. After submitting appeals and representations vide Annexures P/7 to P/10, when nothing was done petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the order-dated 3.12.98 was never communicated to the petitioner, he was not aware of the said letter and even when Annexure P/6 was written on 22.11.2002, it was never within the knowledge of the department that the petitioner has been appointed. Contending that the action of the respondents in unsustainable and the same is illegal, petitioner had filed this writ petition.
3- On notices being issued, respondents have filed return and it is pointed out by the respondents that petitioner was appointed vide Annexure R/1 on 3.12.98, petitioner expressed his inability to accept the appointment on the post of Chowkidar, instead, insisted on appointment on the post of Assistant Grade III or a Ministerial Staff, as he is a Post Graduate MA and he cannot work as a Chowkidar. Accordingly, filing the communication submitted by the petitioner on 10.12.98 Annexure R/2, respondents contend that petitioner himself did not join on the appointed post and, therefore, now no relief can be granted. 4- By filing a rejoinder I.A.No.10096/2008, petitioner refuted and denies submission of the so-called letter on 10.12.98 and points out that he has never objected to joining and places reliance on his various representations and the communication Annexure P/6. It is emphasized that the so called appointment order Annexure R/1 is an after thought, has been manufactured for the purpose of denying the legitimate claim of the petitioner and, therefore, petitioner seeks interference into the matter.
5- Respondents by filing an additional return have refuted the aforesaid and reiterate that petitioner was appointed as a Chowkidar, he was not interested and now he has come with a false claim. 6- With a view to verify the rival contentions, respondents were directed to produce the original file, pertaining to appointment of the petitioner and Shri S.S. Bisen has produced the same for perusal of this Court.
7- During the course of hearing of this writ petition, Shri Rajesh Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, emphasized that the claim of the petitioner was never considered, it was kept pending and now all of a sudden respondents are coming out with a false case that petitioner has been appointed. Referring to the communications Annexures P/5 and P/6 dated 26.11.98 and 22.11.2002 respectively, Shri Rajesh Soni tried to emphasize that a perusal of both these letters would indicate that upto 22.11.2002, no order was passed appointing the petitioner and, therefore, the contention of the respondents is illegal. It was further argued that the so-called refusal letter of the petitioner dated 10.12.98 is a false and fabricated document, it is not filed by the petitioner and even the reference made to a letter dated 14.12.98 in the said communication is proof of the fact that the letter is a manufactured one. Accordingly, Shri Rajesh Soni submits that the contention of the respondent is not correct.
8- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, including the original file produced by Shri S.S. Bisen. 9- From the records it is clear the petitioner's father expired on 28.6.98. Immediately after death of his father, petitioner's mother Smt. Kaushalya Bai submitted an application on 16.11.98, seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner. The said communication in original is available in the file of the petitioner. After the application was submitted, certain communications were made and records indicate that when nothing was done petitioner represented the matter to the Directorate at Bhopal. Accordingly, the Directorate on 26.11.98 Annexure P/5 sought for clarification from the Dy. Director, Jabalpur. This letter Annexure P/5 in original is available in the file of the Department and it is seen from this record that immediately after this letter was received action was directed to be taken and in pursuance thereof an order was passed on 3.12.98, appointing the petitioner. In the original letter-dated 3.12.1998, an endorsement is made to the petitioner. However, there is no proof with regard to service of this letter on the petitioner. When the petitioner represented the matter to Collector, Jabalpur and when Collector made a communication vide his letter No.15287 dated 14.12.98, on 19.1.99 the office of Dy. Director, Jabalpur informed the Collector that after death of petitioner's father, the matter was pending and on 26.11.98, letter bearing No.8807 was received from the Directorate at Bhopal. This letter is the same letter Annexure P/5, filed by the petitioner, and it is stated that in pursuance thereof vide order-dated 3.12.98 petitioner was granted appointment on the post of Chowkidar. It is indicated that petitioner has not joined on the said post till date, but it is indicated that petitioner has submitted an application on 23.12.98 to the departmental authorities and it is indicated by him that he does not want to join on the post of Chowkidar, but he wants to join on Class III post of Clerk. It is stated in this letter received from the petitioner on 23.12.98 is forwarded to the Directorate vide letter No.5124 on 23.12.98. Thereafter, the communications indicate that the petitioner has refused to join on the post, he wants appointment on the post of Assistant Grade III, no post is available in the said category and, therefore, his claim is rejected.
10- If the aforesaid file and the documents available in the file are scanned, it would be seen that there is an order-dated 3.12.98, bearing No.498, issued appointing the petitioner as a Chowkidar. Petitioner denies submission of the letter Annexure R/2 on 10.12.98 and the only justification given by the petitioner is that in this letter reference is made to a letter No.15287 dated 14.12.98, issued by Collector, Jabalpur.
11- Shri Rajesh Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, emphasized that it is not possible for the petitioner to submit this letter on 10.12.98 and make a reference in this letter to a communication of the District Collector dated 14.12.98. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner at first instance appears to be convincing, but if the office file is meticulously analysed, it would be seen that a letter bearing No.15287 dated 14.12.98 issued by Dy. Collector from the office of Collector, Jabalpur is available in the original records of the petitioner's file. In reply to this letter, another letter bearing No.301 is written on 19.1.199, indicating the factual aspect with regard to appointment of the petitioner on 3.12.98 and submission of a letter by him on 23.12.98, refusing appointment on the post of Chowkidar.
12- If the so called letter submitted by the petitioner on 23.12.98 as indicated hereinabove, is scanned, it is seen that it is the same letter which is dated 10.12.98. If the original endorsement of that letter made by the office of Dy. Director, Jabalpur on 23.12.98 is seen, the facts that come on record indicates that even though this letter is said to have been signed by Om Prakash on 10.12.98, it is submitted in the office of Dy. Director on 23.12.98 and on the same day i.e . on 23.12.98, vide letter No.5124, the Dy. Director has forwarded the letter to the Directorate at Bhopal, for necessary information alongwith a covering letter to the said Directorate, informing the authorities about the factual position. If the documents available in the original file, particularly a communication received from the Directorate on 9.3.99 and 31.8.99 are taken note of, it would be seen that on 6.9.98 the Joint Director, Jabalpur indicated to all concerned, including Collector, Jabalpur, about appointment of the petitioner on 3.12.98, then appearance of the petitioner in the office on 23.12.98, his refusal to accept the post of Chowkidar and a request to appoint him on the post of Assistant Grade III. There are overwhelming communications available in the original file indicating these facts and, therefore, it very difficult to believe now the contention of the petitioner that the order-dated 3.12.98 was never served on him. It cannot be believed that the respondents would come out with a false case by fabricating documents. The story of fabrication put forth by the petitioner seems to be incorrect. On the contrary, the original file reveals that when petitioner was appointed on 3.12.98, petitioner did not join and insisted upon seeking appointment on the post of Assistant Grade III and, therefore, the local officers at Jabalpur i.e the office of Dy. Director and Joint Director intimated the matter to the authorities concerned and even when petitioner was representing to the Collector, these facts were intimated. 13- The communications available on record i.e 19.1.99, written to the District Collector, Jabalpur is in reply to his letter dated 14.12.98, the communication made to the petitioner on 9.3.99, available in the original file, the communications made to Dy. Collector, Jabalpur on 6.9.99 alongwith a copy to the Directorate of Matsya Udyog, Bhopal in response to the query dated 31.8.09, endorsing a copy to the petitioner, the communication made by the Collector to the Additional Secretary to the Chief Minister in response to the query made by the Chief Minister's office on 18.5.99, all goes to show that petitioner's contention is not correct. The respondents cannot fabricate so many documents. The documents and communication available in the original file, as indicated hereinabove, bear different dispatch numbers and signatures of various officers and in the absence of any malafide or bias of a particular officer, contention of the petitioner cannot be believed. That apart, if the petitioner had sought appointment in the year 1998 and if nothing was done in the year 1998, it is not known as to why petitioner kept quiet from the year 1998 till the year 2006. The pleadings of the petitioner and the documents filed by him indicate that he has never submitted any representation in this regard. The so called representations Annexures P/7, P/8, P/9 and P/10 filed by the petitioner alongwith this writ petition are dated 29.1.2003, 11.2.2003, 20.2.2004 and 10.3.2004. However, none of these documents bear the acknowledgement of any departmental authorities, they are not sent by registered post acknowledgment due or by courier or by speed post. No receipt or documents as proof for sending these representations are available. It seems that all these documents are manufactured by the petitioner for the first time, for filing this writ petition and in these representations petitioner has come out with a case that it was only on 29.1.2003 when he visited the office of Joint Director, Matsya Udyog, Bargi Nagar, Jabalpur that he was informed about the letter dated 3.12.98. If the petitioner had submitted the application in the year 1998 and if upto 29.1.2003 nothing was informed to him for a period of five years, normally the petitioner or his mother would have represented in the matter to some authority. There is no representation available in the original file nor has the petitioner filed any representation between the year 1998 to 29.1.2003, to show that his application is kept pending, he has not been informed about the fate of his claim for compassionate appointment and, therefore, he is representing.
14- It is surprising that the petitioner kept quiet for five years and all of a sudden woke up on 29.1.2003 and comes out with a story that the order-dated 3.12.98 is not served on him, and he was not aware of this on 29.1.2003. This story put forth by the petitioner seems to be an after thought, only for the purpose of justifying the delay in filing the writ petition and to come over the fact of his refusal to accept the appointment on the post of Chowkidar, offered on 3.12.98. If the original file is scanned, it would be seen that petitioner had been representing to the Collector, the Chief Minister and the Directorate at Bhopal, and the office at Jabalpur had informed all these authorities that petitioner has been appointed on 3.12.98, on the post of Chowkidar and the petitioner has refused to accept the appointment, instead he wants appointment as a clerk in Assistant Grade III, which is not possible. It is, therefore, a case where petitioner having been granted appointment on the post of Chowkidar, most probably did not accept this appointment, as he was a Post Graduate having passed MA and ultimately when his efforts to seek appointment on the post of Ministerial Staff failed, he has now come out with a case for getting appointment in pursuance to the order passed on 3.12.98.
15- Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the family of the petitioner has survived the crisis right from the year 1998 upto 2006, when this writ petition was filed, it is not a fit case where now interference should be made by this Court and appointment on compassionate grounds granted.
16- Accordingly, finding the entire claim made by the petitioner to be unsustainable, the petition is dismissed.