IMPORTANT POINT
The policy in force at the time of consideration, not application, is relevant for grant of compassionate appointment.

JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. This appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises out of an oral order dated 12.07.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11313 of 2014.

2. The petitioner, who is the appellant before us, challenged two orders dated 08.11.2007 and 28.06.2011 passed by the first respondent in the petition by which the request of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in the cadre of Class-IV was turned down on the ground that on the date of the application, the petitioner was not holding the qualification of New SSC Pass.

3. Facts relevant for the purposes of this appeal need not be reiterated as they have been set out by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs no. 3 to 3.3 which read as under :

“3. The policy resolution providing for the Scheme of compassionate appointment under which the petitioner claimed benefits are dated 10.03.2000, and dated 07.09.2002. They prescribe the criteria and parameters for appointment of the kiths and kins of the deceased employee eligible to be appointed on compassionate basis.

3.1 As far as the facts related to the present petitioner are concerned, his father Parbatbhai Jethsurbhai Chavda worked as Forest Guard since 1976 untill he died while in service on 04.05.2002. It appears that the petitioner applied on 16.07.2002 for getting appointment on compassionate ground on the plea that there was no earning member in the family after the death of his father, who was the sole bread earner. It is the case of the petitioner, not controverted, that his application was within the prescribed time limit. The petitioner was at that time aged 22 years and was holding qualification of 7th standard pass. It is averred that he had also completed the course relating to computer education.

3.2 The averments in the petition further travels to state that the second respondent sent a proposal to the first respondent for compassionate appointment of the petitioner and the respondent No.1 sought for certain details from the first respondent. They were supplied. It appears that thereafter the correspondence continued to ensue between the parties. The process culminated into the impugned decision.

3.3 The ground on which the petitioner was denied compassionate appointment was that on the date of application, he was not holding the S.S.C. pass qualification. In this regard, it was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that policy in vogue on the date when he applied for compassionate appointment, did not provide for qualification of S.S.C. He invited attention of the relevant clauses from the policy circular dated 10.03.2000. It was pointed out that for the purpose of appointment on compassionate basis under class-IV category the educational qualification prescribed was passing of standard 4 to 9, and that the petitioner had cleared 7 th standard. It was therefore submitted that the respondents erred to propose to apply the policy, on the date when they communicated the decision to the petitioner as aforesaid.”

4. Mr. Manish Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellant would make the same submissions as were pressed into service before the learned Single Judge. He would submit that the appellant’s father died on 04.05.2002. The appellant applied on 16.07.2002. The appellant possessed the qualification of 7th standard pass. The policy of providing appointment on compassionate grounds in vogue was the policy of 10.03.2000 which provided that an eligible candidate should be holding a qualification of standard 4 to standard 9 pass. The policy of 07.09.2002 made no changes. Therefore, on the date when the application was made i.e. on 06.07.2002, the policy of 10.03.2000 applied and therefore the appellant was qualified for appointment on compassionate grounds.

4.1 It is the submission of Mr. Patel that the rejection of the application on 08.11.2007 as well as on 28.06.2011 on account of a policy of 16.03.2005 which required an applicant to hav