The matriculation certificate is a conclusive proof of date of birth, rejection orders must provide specific reasons, and public orders made by statutory authorities must be construed objectively based on the language used in the order itself.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the letter No. 6075 dated 23/25.09.2014 and letter No. 478 dated 30.01.2016, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father namely, Nand Kishore Dom, who died in harness, has been denied.

3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The father of the petitioner while working under respondent-CCL died on 18.12.2011 and her mother namely, Chamela Devi died on 16.12.2011 i.e. two days’ prior to the death of his father. It is the case of the petitioner that he and his entire family members were fully dependent upon the earnings of his father and after the death of his father, they are facing financial hardship. Hence, the petitioner submitted application before the concerned authority for his appointment on compassionate ground in place of his father, who died in harness. Upon receipt of the application of the petitioner, the concerned authority had asked the petitioner to deposit the educational certificate, in response to which he submitted his 8th pass certificate as at the relevant time matriculation certificate was not available with him. However, as soon as the petitioner got the matriculation certificate, he submitted the same before the respondent-authorities. Thereafter, on 21.07.2014, again the petitioner submitted representation before the General Manager of the respondent-CCL requesting therein to take necessary steps with regard to appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. Thereafter vide letter dated 23/25.09.2014 issued by respondent No. 4, it was informed to the petitioner that his application for compassionate appointment under Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA has been regretted by the competent authority. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the petitioner preferred appeal on 03.06.2015 before the General Manager, CCL, Ranchi, requesting therein to reconsider his case for compassionate appointment. Subsequently, vide letter dated 10.02.2016, it was informed to the petitioner that his case for compassionate appointment cannot be considered for the following reasons:

(I) The applicant did not disclose the factum of his qualification as matriculate and produced matriculation certificate in the initial appointment form for compassionate appointment.

(II) There is variance in the applicant’s date of birth in his school leaving certificate vis-à-vis matriculation certificate.

(III) Earlier at no stage the applicant disclosed his qualification as matriculate till 10.03.2014 i.e. the date when he submitted the matriculation certificate at the area level.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted several representations before the respondent-authority stating therein that he passed Matriculation Examination in the year 2010 from Hindi Shikshapith, Patna (Bihar) and in his matriculation certificate, his date of birth is mentioned as 26.06.1987 and as such, his case may be considered for compassionate appointment on sympathetic ground. However, when nothing was done by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the date of birth of petitioner is 26.06.1987 as mentioned in his matriculation certificate, he was not over aged at the time of making application for compassionate appointment and as such, he is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed in the instant writ application. Learned counsel further argues that his father was the sole bread-earner of his family and after his death the entire family is facing financial hardship and hence, on sympathetic ground his case for compassionate appointment may be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that while regretting his claim for compassionate appointment, the respondents have not mentioned the specific reasons and as such, the said order is not tenable in the eyes of l