Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Rabindra Das and Ors.

By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge held that, there was no impediment in granting appointment to the writ petitioner on compassionate ground. The learned Single Judge set aside the order of rejection dated June 24, 2020 of the appellant.

Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the appellant was denied a reasonable opportunity to contest the writ petition. The appellant was not allowed to file an affidavit contesting the merits of the writ petition. Rather, a report was called for from the appellant, by the learned Single Judge limited to requirement of preemployment medical examination. He submits that, an opportunity should be granted to the appellant to contest the writ petition on merits.

We find from the impugned order that, the writ petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on the ground of his deceased father dying in harness on September 28, 2018 while working as an employee of Eastern Coalfields

Limited. Such application was rejected by the authorities

3

by its order dated June 24, 2020 on the ground that, the writ petitioner was over-aged as on the date of application for compassionate appointment.

The age of the writ petitioner was being contested by the appellant. In respect of the age of the writ petitioner, documents relating to the educational qualification of the writ petitioner was sought to be relied upon in the writ petition. The appellant was denied an opportunity to use an affidavit dealing with such documents by the learned Single Judge.

The learned Single Judge in course of hearing of the writ petition, directed ossification test to be undertaken of the writ petitioner to determine his age at the specified Government Hospital. However, the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration that, the writ petitioner was canvassing his age on the basis of documentary evidence. Such documentary evidence of age was required to be assessed prior to directing the ossification test to be undertaken. There is no finding by the learned Single Judge that, the documents relied on in support of the age

of the writ petitioner, was unreliable or that, such

4

documents did not speak about the age of the writ petitioner. Moreover, no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to deal with such documents.