IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 844 of 2007 (S/S) Himmat Singh ……Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. …….Respondents. Mr. N.S. Negi, ,Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Farida Siddiquie, Standing Counsel for Union of India. Dated:-28-12-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 07.02.2007 (Annexure no. 14 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner was not considered for appointment under dying-in-harness Rules on the ground of overage. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition are that petitioner earlier also filed a writ petition No. 4180 of 2001 (S/S), for appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying-in-Harness Rules in Class III or Class IV post in Special Security Bureau (for short S.S.B.), which was disposed of vide order dated 05.04.2006 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in any post according to his qualification. It is further stated in the writ petition that father of the petitioner-late Sain Singh, served in S.S.B., for about 2 30 years and died on 21.10.1995. After the death of his father, petitioner submitted a representation on 10.10.1996, before respondent No. 3, for giving him appointment on compassionate ground as a dependant of his deceased father in any capacity either in Para Military capacity or in the civilian category whatsoever is available for a dependant of deceased employee. Thereafter, vide letter dated 09.10.1997 (annexure no. 6 to the writ petition), respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that the petitioner has been declared disqualified for appointment by the order of higher officer. Since there was no specific reason disclosed for rejection of appointment of the petitioner in the order dated 09.10.1997, the petitioner’s mother wrote a letter dated 16.10.1997 (annexure no. 7 to the writ petition) to respondent No. 2, asking him to disclose the reason as to why appointment cannot be given to the petitioner. Vide letter dated 08.06.1998, respondent No. 3 intimated the petitioner’s mother that as and when the vacancy would occur the petitioner will be absorbed in the service as a deceased dependant. Again on 13.01.2000 (annexure no. 8 to the writ petition), respondent No. 2 wrote to respondent No. 3 as well as to Divisional Organiser, U.P. Division, asking them to examine the case of the petitioner on extreme compassionate ground. Thereafter, the petitioner was called by the respondents for being considered for the post of Constable in S.S.B. but he was rejected on medical ground as he was found unfit due to knock-knee and shoulder deformity. On being rejected, 3 the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 4180 of 2001, before this Court for appointment on compassionate ground on Class III or Class IV post in S.S.B., which was disposed of vide order dated 05.04.2006 (Annexure no. 9 to the writ petition), whereby respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment in any post according to his qualification and physical fitness. It is specifically stated in para 23 of the writ petition that while passing the order dated 07.02.2007, the respondents failed to consider that at the time of filing of application for appointment under dying-in-harness rules (i.e. on 10.10.1996), the petitioner was only 20 years old and his application was rejected on the ground of overage and it was fault on the part of the respondents because they themselves kept the matter pending for about 10 years and thereafter rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of overage. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents it is stated that petitioner was denied appointment on compassionate ground as he was not found medically fit. This fact is not denied by the petitioner. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court vide order dated 05.04.2006, in writ petition No. 4180 of 2001 (S/S), disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment in any post according to his qualification and physical fitness. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew attention of this Court to the similar controversy decided in writ petition No. 1382 of 2006 (S/S), Gajendra Singh Vs. Union of India and others, by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2010, whereby it was observed as under:- “The petitioner has become overage on account of the fault of the respondents. There has been no delay at the behest of the petitioner in not filing the application in time. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed……” Therefore, in view of the order passed by this Court in writ petition No. 1382 of 2006 (S/S), the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to decide the claim of the petitioner on merit and reconsider the petitioner for appointment on any post according to his qualification and physical fitness, within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. (B.S.Verma, J.) 28-12-2010 S 5