Writ Petition (C) No. 256 of 2015. Case: Pawan Kumar Ojha Vs State of Meghalaya and Ors.. Meghalaya High Court

Case NumberWrit Petition (C) No. 256 of 2015
Party NamePawan Kumar Ojha Vs State of Meghalaya and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: S.P. Sharma, Adv. and For Respondents: N.D. Chullai, Sr. GA
JudgesDinesh Maheshwari, C.J.
IssueConstitution of India - Articles 14, 16
Judgement DateApril 19, 2016
CourtMeghalaya High Court

Order:

Dinesh Maheshwari, C.J.

  1. The petitioner herein is aggrieved of the order dated 13.08.2014 (Annexure-IX) as issued by the respondent-Superintendent of Police East Khasi Hills, Shillong, informing him of rejection of his claim for employment on compassionate ground as being time-barred, per Para 10 of the Government Office Memorandum (O.M.) No. PER(AR) 154/178/147 dated 11.12.1984.

  2. Put in brief, the relevant factual aspects of the matter are that the petitioner's father (L) Lalan Prasad Ojha, who was working with the Meghalaya Police in the rank of UBC, expired on 04.12.1994 while in service and when the petitioner was only 7 years of age. From the material placed on record, it appears that the date of birth of the petitioner is 12.05.1987; and the petitioner acquired educational qualification of Secondary in the year 2003 and Intermediate on 07.06.2005. The case of the petitioner is that after attaining the age of 18 years, he submitted an application on 20.08.2006 for employment on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father; and, as advised, also submitted his bio-data along with the duly filled in standard form of application. The petitioner has averred that since the year 2006, himself and his mother had been pursuing the matter with the respondents, but of no avail; and ultimately, he received the impugned letter dated 13.08.2014 returning the application in original while alleging that his claim was time-barred as per Para 10 of the O.M. dated 11.12.1984, but without disclosing at all as to how the claim was barred by time.

  3. The petitioner has further averred that as per the Notification dated 02.12.2010, the scheme for employment on compassionate ground, as provided under the said O.M. dated 11.12.1984, stood abolished from 24.11.2010, but then, specific exception was made to the effect that the pending proposals, including those arising upto 24.11.2010, will be examined on merit by the Government. According to the petitioner, as per this Notification dated 02.12.2010, the applications made until 24.11.2010 were to be considered on their merit and hence, the application made by him on 20.08.2006 could not have been rejected as time-barred. The petitioner has further submitted that as per the information collected under the Right to Information Act, the respondents have extended appointment on compassionate ground in various districts and in various offices from the year 2006 and until the date to as many as 213 candidates and there was no justified reason for rejecting his claim for such appointment.

  4. The respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, essentially contending that the application of the petitioner was rejected in accordance with Para 10 of the O.M. dated 11.12.1984, as it was found after thorough checking of the papers that the petitioner was 7 years of age at the time of demise of his father and acquired Intermediate qualification in the month of June, 2005 but then, he submitted the application for appointment on compassionate ground only on 12.07.2007 i.e., after a lapse of two years from the date of...

To continue reading

Request your trial