IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 23181 of 2005(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SMT. SHYLAJA NAIR, W/O. LATE M.S.NAIR, (CISF NO.821170142, CONSTABLE), `HARITHAM', P.O. MANKADA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,KERALA-679324. BY ADVS. MR.M.RAJAGOPALAN MR.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL, CISF, CISF HEAD QUARTERS, 13, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003. 2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, CISF, CISF EASTERN ZONAL HEAD QUARTERS, PATNA. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. ADVS. MR.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG FOR R MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.23181/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE IST PAGE OF SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 30.12.04 OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COP LETTER NO.F-32015/9/2005/RECTT/159 DT. 19.1.05 FROM THE IST RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 21.2.05 ADDRESSED TO SRI.KRISHNADAS BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E-28014/CISF/IOC/ADMN./2005/530 DT. 19/20.4.05 FROM THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT, CISG AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R2(a):- COPY OF THE CISF CIRCULAR NO.21/2005/R&S DT. 14.6.05. R2(b):- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 4.3.05 ISSUED BY ASST. INSPECTOR GENERAL, CISF. R2(c):- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 20.4.05 ISSUED BY THE DY.COMMANDANT, CISF, BARAUNI. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ====================== W.P.(C) No. 23181 of 2005(I) ====================== Dated, this the 2nd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exhibit P5 order passed by the Departmental Authorities whereby her application dated 30-12-2004 seeking for compassionate appointment upon the death of her husband occurred on 10-9-2004 while working as a Police Constable in the CISF was rejected stating that she was over aged and not eligible to be considered for appointment in any post in the CISF. 2. It is revealed from the materials on record that the deceased husband of the petitioner, while working as a Police Constable in the CISF at Barauni under the Eastern Zone had come on leave to meet his family and while so, he happened to be inflicted with the Malarial Hepatitis leading to such other complications; which finally made him to succumb to the same on 10-9-2004. W.P.(C) No. 23181/2005 -:2:- 3. Immediately after the demise of her husband, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P2 application, seeking for compassionate appointment as a 'lady constable'; projecting the extremely poor financial state of affairs and the adverse circumstances being met by the family consisting of two little children and the mother of the deceased. Exhibit P2 request was replied by the Departmental Authorities as per Exhibit P3, stating that the petitioner, having admittedly not passed S.S.L.C., was not eligible to be considered for appointment as 'lady constable' and that she could be considered for appointment only in Group 'D' Followers' category, subject to availability of vacancies against the 5% quota ear-marked for compassionate appointment. Later, the petitioner was served with Exhibit P5 communication dated 19/20-04-2005 informing her that the application was considered, but her candidature could not be considered against any post in the CISF as she was over aged. W.P.(C) No. 23181/2005 -:3:- 4. The finding and reasoning given by the Departmental Authorities is asserted as not correct from the part of the petitioner, referred to the relevant Rules formulated by the third respondent/Government of India as extracted under Ground 'C' of the writ petition. It is also pointed out that the upper age limit could be relaxed wherever found to be necessary and further that if the age requirement is not relaxed for a widow, the very purpose of the scheme will be defeated, as highlighted in the very same paragraph. 5. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit in support of the contents of Exhibit P5, also stating that the Rule position mentioned by the petitioner is not correct; that the maximum extent of relaxation of age as provided under the relevant Rules is only for a period of 'two years' and further that the selection and appointment even under the compassionate appointment scheme is subject to various other conditions as stipulated in the W.P.(C) No. 23181/2005 -:4:- relevant Rules, a full text of which has been produced as Exhibit R2(a) along with the counter affidavit. It is asserted in paragraph 8 of the said counter affidavit that the competent authority, after considering the application preferred by the petitioner, had rejected the same since she had crossed the maximum stipulated age as borne by Exhibit R2(b) and it was accordingly that the consequential order dated 19/20-4-2005 was issued, which has been challenged in this writ petition, producing a copy of the same as Exhibit P5. 6. The relief prayed for has been vehemently opposed by the respondents stating in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, that the application preferred by the petitioner was disposed of in the light of the instructions contained in the CISF Circular No.21/2005/R&S and adhering to the principles and specifications made therein and not otherwise as alleged by the petitioner. The respondents further submitted that the Rules/Instructions W.P.(C) No. 23181/2005 -:5:- quoted by the petitioner vide Ground 'C' are neither complete nor relevant in the context and are thoroughly misleading. On a close scrutiny, it is brought to light that the CISF Circular No.21/2005/R&S dated 14-6-2005 produced as Exhibit R2(a) along with the counter affidavit and stated as relied on by the respondents to reject Exhibit P2 application, leading to Exhibits R2(b) and R2(c) [Exhibit P5] orders, is only a subsequent event. The above Rules came into existence only on 14-6-2005 and never before, since no retrospective effect is stated as mentioned therein. More over, the death of the concerned constable was on 10.9.2004 and the application of the petitioner was admittedly dated 30-12-2004, which was considered and finalised as communicated vide Exhibit P5 proceedings dated 19/20-04-2005. It remains a mystery as to how the respondents could consider the application dated 30.12.2004 submitted by the petitioner and could reject the same as per Exhibit R2(b) proceedings dated 4-2-2005 (and as communicated by Exhibit R2(a) proceedings dated 19/20- W.P.(C) No. 23181/2005 -:6:- 04-2005) on the basis of the terms and conditions as contained in Exhibit R2(a) C.I.S.F. Circular No. 21/2005/R&S dated 14-6-2005. In fact, the application submitted by the petitioner ought to have been considered by the concerned respondents on the basis of the then available Rules governing the compassionate appointment and not on the basis of Exhibit R2(a) Rules, which were yet to take breath as on that date. On this score alone, the impugned order passed by the Departmental Authorities is liable to be set aside and this Court undoubtedly does so. 7. The casual manner in which the application preferred by the petitioner for the benefit of the scheme for compassionate appointment, which has a definite purpose and intent to serve as measure of social security brought about by the Government, is very much liable to be deprecated. More so, when the signatory has chosen to file an affidavit before this Court stating that the Rule position quoted by the petitioner is wrong, incomplete and W.P.(C) No. 23181/2005 -:7:- 'misleading' whereas has not chosen to take the minimum prudence and care required to be shown of the very high office, he was holding as a Group Commandant of the C.I.S.F. That apart, such a wrong affidavit has been filed stating that it was being filed on behalf of all the respondents in the writ petition, which includes the Home Secretary as well. It has been made clear by the Apex Court on many an occasion that the act of filing casual, reckless and wrong affidavit/statement before the Court has to be dealt with very seriously, as such attempt is liable to be treated as an act of contempt of court. 8. This Court is not at all happy with the manner in which the things have been taken by the respondents and if appropriate proceedings are to be pursued on the basis of the casual/reckless affidavit filed by the concerned party, the effect will be very much disastrous. For the time being, this Court confines to such other appropriate measures, particularly since it is not confirmable whether the mistake W.P.(C) No. 23181/2005 -:8:- occurred at the hands of the first respondent or the second or third respondent or could it be attributed only to the deponent to the said affidavit. In any view of the matter, the wrong affidavit having been filed on behalf of all the respondents, nobody can escape the liability by putting the blame on some other. 9. In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the first respondent is directed to have Exhibit P2 application considered afresh by the competent authority in the light of the relevant Rules, which existed at the time of death of the husband of the petitioner or as on date of Exhibit P2 application, as the case may be, and to arrive at an independent decision. The application preferred by the petitioner herein shall never be rejected on the ground of lack of availability of vacancies or on such other grounds, which are not in conformity with the Rules then in existence. Final orders in this regard shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner as expeditiously W.P.(C) No. 23181/2005 -:9:- possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent so as to enable to him to pursue further steps in this regard. The writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- for filing a false affidavit by the respondents as contained in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, in lieu of contempt proceedings to be pursued against the concerned respondents/officials. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. skr // True copy // P.A. to Judge.