Uma Thakur v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1697 of 2015 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9388 of 2015 =========================================================== Uma Thakur, Widow of Late V.K. Thakur, resident of C/o Mahesh Prasad Singh, Darpan Dresses, Shyam Market, Mokama, P.S. Mokama, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner / Appellant
Versus
1. The Union of India through Secretary (Home) New Delhi
2. The Director General of Police, Central Industrial Security Force, Head Quarter, 13 CGO's Compound Lodhi Road, New Delhi
3. The Inspector General of Police, C.I.S.F., East Zone Head Quarter, Patna
4. The Assistant Commandant, C.I.S.F., East Zone Head Quarter, Patna .... .... Respondents / Respondents.
=========================================================== Appearance:
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. S.G. with Mr. Akshay Bahadur Mathur, CGC.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 31-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India.
2. It is not a case where the claim for compassionate appointment was not considered by the respondents but since the compassionate appointment is not a constitutional right and such appointment can only accrue within the framework of the policy. The appellant was invited, was allowed to undergo a procedure and having failed to fulfill the eligibility, she cannot demand that because it is a case of compassionate appointment there is a mandate to give an
Patna High Court LPA No.1697 of 2015 dt.31-08-2017 2/2 opening or appointment under the respondents.
3. Even though the factum of delay, which also went into dismissal of the Writ Application, is ignored, it makes no difference to the sum and essence of the conclusion that the appellant has no right to be appointed as a matter of course but since she failed to earn the minimum eligibility that was the primary reason why compassionate appointment was refused.
4. Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Dilip, AR AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 04.09.2017 Transmission Date N/A