Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
The Allahabad High Court has quashed a 2001 government order (GO) stipulating that an application for appointment on compassionate grounds,made five years after the death of an employee,would not be considered by the state government unless there are exceptional circumstances.
The court said the GO was not clear on what the exceptional circumstances were. It also said the GO gave wide and arbitrary discretion to the competent authority in deciding whether or not delayed applications would be sent to the state government. The court passed the order on Wednesday while hearing the petition of Bhoopendra Kumar,son of Shri Krishna Yadav,a police constable from Meerut,who had died while on duty in 1994 on account of illness.
At that point,Bhoopendra was a minor. He applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in 2001,when he became a major. Though Bhoopendra cleared the medical fitness test and other procedural formalities,his application was rejected on February 12,2003,on the basis of the GO that was passed on May 30,2001. The petitioner received the rejection order by post only in 2007,following which he approached the high court, said counsel for the petitioner Udai Chandani. He added that the petition had challenged the rejection order as well as the GO on the basis of which the application was rejected.
Passing the order,a single-judge bench of Justice Tarun Agarwala said,The government order dated 30 May,2001,is wholly arbitrary. and cannot be sustained and is quashed.
The court also quashed the order passed on February 12,2003,in which the candidature of Bhoopendra was rejected. The matter is remitted to the competent authority (Senior Superintendent of Police,Meerut,in this case) to forward the application (of the petitioner) to the state government immediately. The state government is required to consider the application and pass appropriate orders on it in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, the court said.
Examining the GO under question,the court said that while the rules provided for relaxing the five-year stipulation in case of exceptional circumstances,there was no clarity on what circumstances would be considered as exceptional.
The rules provide a latitude to the state government to relax the period of five years and this power cannot be sub-delegated to the competent authority. Further,nothing has been indicated in the GO as to what are the exceptional circumstances which would allow the competent authority to forward the matter to the state government.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram