SCA/1073/2004 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1073 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD ========================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= = SANJAY KUMAR HARGOVANBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ========================================= =Appearance : MR JJ YAJNIK with MR SUNIL L MEHTA for the Petitioner MR SP HASURKAR, ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondents ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD Date : 23/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. It appears from the record that this Court had earlier directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was earlier rejected on the ground that the family income is more than Rs.2,500/-. After that, the petitioner came this Court and this Court directed for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner. On reconsideration, the respondents have relied upon a SCA/1073/2004 2/2 JUDGMENT Circular issued by them on 10.03.2000 and, on the basis of that, they have said that any ward of Group-III officer would not be entitled to be granted an appointment in the nature which the petitioner is asking for. Challenging this order, the petitioner has come up before this Court. 2. Admittedly, in terms of the order of the Government dated 10.3.2000, if an ward of Class-II officer seeks appointment on compassionate ground, such liberty is not available to him. The policy of the Government to grant compassionate appointment is applicable only to heirs of Class-III and Class-IV. Admittedly, the petitioner is the heir of Class-II. Hence, the case of the petitioner cannot be covered under the policy. The Government has decided as per the policy of the Government. Hence, no fault could be found with the decision. Then, another handicap came. On these counts, the petitioner can be held to be not entitled to any relief. In that view of matter, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.) omkar