IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 866 of 2008 Syed Baquar Mehandi Jafri ………….Petitioner Versus Khadi & Village Industries Commission and another ……...Respondents. Present : Ms. Indu Sharma, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate present for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Ms. Indu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the respondents. 2. The father of the petitioner was an employee in “Khadi and Village Industries Commission (from hereinafter referred to as KVIC) which is a Government of India undertaking. He was on a Group ‘C’ post and he died in harness on 28.12.2004. The petitioner being the son of the deceased applied for appointment on compassionate ground. Since the appointment was not given to the petitioner, he was constrained to file a writ petition before this Court. 3. In reply (regarding appointment under dying in harness), the KVIC has stated that the employment under dying in harness rules is presently governed by certain Standing Orders and criteria has been laid down as to who has to be given the priority. The first priority has been given to those widows who are having a minor child and whose husband was on a Group ‘D’ post. 2 Second priority has been given to those widows who are having a minor child and whose husband was on a Group ‘C’ post, and so on. The records of the petitioner which have been filed along with the counter affidavit show that the case of the petitioner was considered on three occasions and on the first two occasions eight and two appointments respectively were made, which were all of widows of Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees. The case of the petitioner was also considered for third time on 2.7.2008 where there were other candidates who were higher in priority than the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner could not be given appointment under the dying in harness rules. 4. The petitioner though has raised a legal argument stating that the priority laid down by the petitioner stands superseded by an order dated 15.3.2002 and hence there could not have been any priority. The respondents though have stated that in the year 2004 the priority which was existing earlier has been revived. 5. In view of this Court since a criteria has been adopted by the respondent in terms of compassionate appointment and that criteria was followed by the respondents and there is no allegation of bias and arbitrariness in such matters, the action of the respondents cannot be assailed on the grounds as alleged by the petitioner. There was definitely a priority followed by the respondents while making such appointments, as shown by them in their counter affidavit. This priority has been followed. The petitioner did not come under that priority and therefore the appointment has not been given to him. 3 6. The writ petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 8.11.2011 Avneet