CWP-T No. 2897 of 2008 (OA No. 1096 of 2007) 18.12.2009 Present:- Mr. R.D.Kaundal, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. A.G. and Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. for the respondents. The petitioner through this petition has prayed a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Clerk, Class-III w.e.f. 14.3.2005 with all consequential benefits. The further case of the petitioner is that Shyam Singh, father of the petitioner had been working as P.A. in the office of Chief Engineer, I&PH (NZ), Dharamshala, who died in harness on 2.5.2003. The family of the deceased was left in pitiable condition as no other member of the family was in Government service or in the service of any Corporation. The petitioner passed his matriculation examination from H.P.Board of School Education in the year 1995. The petitioner passed his Senior Secondary (Plus Two) Examination in the year 2004 from the National Institute of Open Schooling, Govt. of India, New Delhi. The petitioner as per policy dated 18.1.1990 of the Government for providing employment assistance to the dependents of such government employees who dies in harness, applied with all documents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Clerk. The Engineer-in-Chief (I&PH) vide letter dated 4.11.2003 recommended the case of the petitioner to Principal Secretary (I&PH) for appointment of - 2 - petitioner to the post of Clerk. In the letter dated 4.11.2003 it was stated that petitioner is eligible for the post of Clerk and in the Department 45 posts of Clerks were lying vacant. The petitioner was offered post of Work-charged Beldar vide memo dated 14.3.2005 Annexure A-4. The petitioner in compliance to memo dated 14.3.2005 gave his joining to the Assistant Engineer, I&PH Sub Division, Baijnath on 14.3.2005 and since then he is working as work- charged Beldar. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that the case of the petitioner was arbitrarily rejected for giving him appointment on the post of Clerk, whereas the Department has appointed Ramesh Chand and Seema Devi as Clerks, even though, their cases were sent in January, 2004 for appointment. The respondents have admitted that petitioner had applied for employment as per policy dated 18.01.1990. It was denied that petitioner was eligible for the post of Clerk as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The respondents have taken the stand that the petitioner was rightly offered the post of work-charged Beldar vide memo dated 14.3.2005 Annexure A-4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the supplementary affidavit dated 29.9.2009 the - 3 - respondents have stated that Seema and Ramesh Kumar were appointed as Clerk as they fulfilled the educational qualification at the time of appointment as they have passed plus two and there was vacancy of the post of Clerk. In so far the petitioner is concerned, in the same affidavit, it has been stated that petitioner was not having the essential education qualification as he was 10th pass with 3rd Division at the time of applying for appointment and there was no vacancy of Class-III post. The close perusal of the supplementary affidavit dated 29.9.2009 indicates that in the case of Seema and Ramesh Kumar the respondents have taken the educational qualifications of the persons at the time of their appointment whereas in the case of petitioner the education qualification has been taken into consideration when he applied for the appointment. As per the Himachal Pradesh Department of Irrigation and Public Health Clerk Class-III (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1996, the essential qualification is that the candidate should have passed Matriculation in second Division or 10+2 Examination or its equivalent from a recognized Board / University. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner was 10+2 at the time of appointment on 14.3.2005 when petitioner was appointed workcharge Beldar. It has been clearly stated in the letter - 4 – - dated 4.11.2003 Annexure A-1 that petitioner is eligible for the post of Clerk and in the Department 45 posts of Clerks were lying vacant. In these circumstances, the affidavit dated 29.9.2009 cannot be relied for considering the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Clerk. It has come on record that Seema and Ramesh Kumar had applied for the post of Clerk in the Department on compassionate appointment after the petitioner had applied. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case. The petition is accordingly, allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Clerk on compassionate grounds w.e.f. 14.3.2005 with all consequential benefits within a period of two months from today. The petition stands disposed of on above terms. December 18, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.