The conclusive proof of age as per the Matriculation Certificate and the principle that the legality and propriety of an employee's appointment could not be tested after their death were central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

S.N. Pathak, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.02.2015 [Annexure-6 to the writ petition], whereby the application of the petitioner''s mother recommending name of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected and further for a direction to the respondents to issue letter of appointment in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of para-9.3.0, 9.4.0 and 9.5.0 of the NCWA-VIII.

3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner''s father who was an employee of the respondent - Company posted as Tripman at Kargali, OCP, B & K Area, was declared unfit by the respondent - Company on 05.01.2013 and his name was struck off from the rolls of Kargali OCP. Thereafter, under the provisions of NCWA, the elder son of the concerned employee applied for employment on the ground of employee being declared unfit. However, in the mean time the petitioner''s father died in harness on 31.10.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner''s mother was communicated by the officials of the respondent - Company that claim of elder brother of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of medical unfitness. Since the petitioner''s name find place as a dependent in the Service Sheet of the deceased employee, her mother filed a representation dated 20.01.2015 for recommending his name for appointment on compassionate ground. However, vide order dated 11.02.2015, the representation filed by the petitioner''s mother has been rejected on the ground that "as per service sheet records/pension records (PS-III), the age of the petitioner namely Deep Narayan Singh is above 35 years as such we are not able to process the case for employment of Sri Deep Narayan Singh" and hence this writ petition.

4. Mr. Kumar Harsh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is well within the prescribed age limit which is also evident from the Matriculation Certificate. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order suffers from application of mind and has been rejected illegally and arbitrarily and as such the same is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel further submitted that the application of the petitioner''s elder brother has been rejected on the ground that the deceased employee had misrepresented for obtaining appointment in the Company and therefore the appointment of the deceased employee was illegal and on the other hand the application of the petitioner has been rejected on the frivolous ground of over age. Learned counsel further submitted that since petitioner''s father was declared medically unfit and as such under the provisions of NCWA, the dependents of the employee are entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel further submitted that the family of the deceased employees were totally dependent on his income and have legitimate expectation under the provisions of NCWA to get appointment on compassionate grounds.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring Annexure-9 Series and Annexure-10 to the supplementary affidavit pointed out that due to illiteracy of the parent and tender age of the petitioner, mistake regarding surname has cropped up and Deep Narayan Chauhan and Deep Narayan Singh are same person. He further pointed out that petitioner''s family used to write down "Chauhan" and "Singh" as their surname and the photographs pasted in the Certificate tallies with the petitioner. On the ground of such inadvertent mistake, candidature of a candidate could not have been rejected. Learned counsel further relies upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey v. M/s. BCCL through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director reported in 2007(3) JLJR 726 and further refers Para-29 thereof, which reads as under:

"29. In view of the above discussion, our answer to the question raised in this case is as follows:

"The date of birth re