CIVIL APPEAL 9801 of 2008 on 12 November 1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

C.W.P. (T) No. 9801 of 2008.

Decided on 14[th] December, 2010.

_____________________________________________________

Kuldeep Singh.

…Petitioner.

-Versus-

State of H.P. and Others.

…Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1] NO.

__________________________________________________________

For the petitioner. :Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No. 4. : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):

Petitioner lost his father on 16.07.1995. He was appointed as Forest Guard on 12.11.1997 on compassionate basis.

2. Ms. Archana Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard, whereas respondent No. 4 was appointed as Junior Engineer.

3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that in fact, the petitioner has only applied for the post of Forest Guard and at this belated stage, his category cannot be changed.

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.

5. A bare perusal of proforma filled by the respondents makes it abundantly clear that against column No. (f), the petitioner has given his option for the post of Forest Guard. He was called for interview and after selection process was complete, he has been appointed as Forest Guard. Once the petitioner has given his option for the post of Forest Guard, he can not turn around and seek appointment as Junior Engineer. Moreover, no directions can be issued after a period of 13 years to change the category of the petitioner from Forest Guard to Junior Engineer. The purpose of granting appointment on compassionate basis is to enable the family to tide over the crises immediately after the death of bread earner. No person can claim appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right.

6. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.

December 14, 2010. (bhupender)

(Rajiv Sharma) Judge