> r ^ fa^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. L'2.007 Petitioner ..-•'^>\. l^t.-:"'/- ^-"' ..••' iS^ ,^^ Chandra Bhan Mahilange, S/o Late Karam Das Mahilange, Aged about 31 years, R/o Kasturba Nagar, Bilaspur, Dist : Bilaspur- (C.G.) Versus Respondents -o"', \/}^ ^ 1. State of Chha.ttisgarh, Through - The Chief Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) 2. The Director General of Police, Raipur, Dist : Raipur-(C.G.) 3. The Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur, „ Distt. Bilaspur-(C.G.) 4. The Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur- (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UND_ERJ^RTICLE 226 OF THE C^ONSTITUTION OF INDIA '? yi- a •fSf- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) No. .5048 of2007 PETmONER : Chandra Bhan Mahilange. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgai-h & Others. WRIT PET.THON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTIONQFJNDJA iB: Hoa'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Deepak Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Goveniment Advoeate forthe State. 1. 2. (Passed on 27ttl day of April, 2010) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14.02.2007 (Annexure P/6) viliereby the represemation made by the petitioner for gi-ant of compassionate appointment, pursuant to the order dated 28.08.2006 passed m W.P. No. 849/2004, has been rejected. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as Bal Ardali in the police departiiient in Februaiy, 1988 (Annexure P/I) on the death ofhis father namely Karam Das Maliillange, Constable on 03.06.1986, in hamess. At that time, tlie petitioner was minor. Thereafter, on attainingthe age ofmajority i.e. 18 years on 7.3.1994, the petitioner was removed from sen''ice on the saine date (AimexT.ire P/2). Thereafter, the petitioner prefen-ed a representation whieh was rejected by the Inspector Geiieral of Police, Bilaspur Zone, on 17.01.1995 (Annexure P/l) holding that the petitioner had not passed the class 8 exatnination, thus, even ifhe was granted two years time, Ihe petitioner cannot pass class 10 exammation. Thus, for want of requisite qualification, the petitioner cannot be granted appointment on the post of Constable. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P. No. 849/2004 which was disposed of witfa liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a representation on account ofthe fact that the petitioner had acquired 10 class examination certincate. The petitionei- made a representation to the Senior Superintendent ofPolice, Bilaspur, on 02.09.2006 (Annexure A'l) which was rejected vide order dated 14.02.2007 (Annexwe P/6). 3. Shri Jain, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits tfiat the petitioner could not pass class 10 examination within a period oftwo years, however, the petitioner had obtained fhe aforesaid qualification iii the vear 2002 and as sucli, having regard to the famlv condition ofthe petitioner, the respondent aufhorities may be directed to reinstate the petitioner on tfae post ofConstable fi-om the date ofobtainmg class 10 pass certificate. 4. Qn the other hand, Shri Bhatia, leanied Govenmient Advocate appearing for the State/respondents would submit that appointment of the petitioner was on temporar;.' basis and was fiirther for a period till the petitioner attains the age of 18 yeare which is evident fi'om order dated Febmary, 1988 (Annexure P/l). The then State Govenmient has clarified from time to time that appointoient on the post of Constable from Bal Arakshak, shall be subject passing class 10 examination within a period oftn'o years from attauiing tlie age ofl8 years, which is the requisite educational qualification for appoiutment on the post of Constable. The petitioner failed to pass class 10 examination within the prescribed period of two years after attahung the age of majority. The c sen'ices of the petitioner came to an aid. There is no ma'la fide or stigma. 5. Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the appointment ofthe petitioner was purely temporary and not through any selection process and the saine was subject to obtainmg the mininium educational qualification i.e. class 10 examination certificate. The petitioner failed to acquire the said qualitication within tlie tenure ofhis service which came to an end on 07.03.1994. Thus, the impugned ordei' dated 14.02.2007 (Annexure P/6) cannot be held as vitiated. 6. Further it is well settled principle oflaw that ifan appointment is made de hors the constitutional scheme of employment, the appointment is govemed under fiie terms and conditions as prescribed ia the appointoient order. Iii the case on haid, it vvas specifically provided iti the appointmeiit letter issued in fhe month ofFebmary, 1988 (Aimexure P/l) that the appointment was for a maxiiiium period of attaining 18 years ofage by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner could not pass class 10 examination within a period ofhis service as Bal Ardali, which he had passed in the year 2002. The Assistant Inspector General ofPolice, (Personnel) by his communication date3 18.11.2003 (Annexure A/7) addressed to the Supei-iiitendent of Police, a copy of which was also endorsed to the petitioner, has held that since the petitioner has acquired the class 10 pass certificate after eight years from fhe date ofbems removed from service on attaming fhe age of 18 years, the petitioner caimot be graiited reappointaient on compassionate basis. -^T^ //-^ •'^•.•': fv\ '•^.^,.Jy^ '^cs^88' -(' Amit <~. 9. 7. Thus, the petitioner had no right to reappointment on the post for want of nunimum educational qualification wliieh was a cleai" condition as clarified bv the State Govenunent from time to time. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge x :» /at