1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3071/2006 Ram Jeevan Bishnoi Vs. The Khadi and Vilage Industries Commission & Ors. Date of Order :: 25.07.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.Nitin Trivedi, for the petitioner. Mr.J.K. Shrimali, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case, petitioner is challenging his rejection order dated 14th February, 2005 (Annexure-11) for providing appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that without assigning any reason claim of petitioner has been rejected by respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that case of petitioner was considered as per parameters laid down by the Government and taking into account the vacancies 2 available vis-a-vis the number of eligible applications received for consideration as on 31st December, 2003 and application of petitioner for compassionate appointment was not considered. Upon perusal of Annexure-11 dated 14.2.2005 passed by Director (Administration), Khadi and Village Industries, Mumbai it is revealed that application of the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground was not considered due to non-availability of vacancy but in reply it is stated that his case does not fall within the parameters laid down by the Government, meaning thereby it is not disclosed how petitioner's case is not come under the parameters laid down by the Government. It is also obvious that applications were considered against the vacancies which were in existence upto 31st December 2003, whereas application of petitioner was rejected in the year 2005. Meaning thereby at the time of rejecting application of petitioner for providing compassionate appointment, all the vacancies which were in existence till 2005 were not taken into account. In this view of the matter, after perusing Annexure- 11 dated 14th February, 2005, I am of the opinion that at the time of rejecting application for providing compassionate appointment, reasons are required to be given in the order but in this case no reasons has been given by the respondents. Therefore, the order passed by respondents for 3 denial of appointment is totally non-speaking order and passed without assigning any reasons. In these circumstances, I deem it just and proper to quash the order dated 14th February, 2005 with the direction to respondents to reconsider the case of petitioner and pass a fresh order. If it is found that petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment then reasons shall be recorded in the order of rejection. It is also clarified that at the time of consideration all the vacancies which is in existence till 2008 shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground. Further it is also required to be observed that petitioner's case shall be considered at par with those persons who were provided appointment on compassionate ground. With these directions, this writ petition is disposed of. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J. A.K. Chouhan/-s