By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that though the appointment may number have been in accordance with the policy of companypassionate appointment, yet the fact that the respondent writ petitioner had worked for about 4 years and was number guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation in seeking appointment under the scheme, the impugned order dated 24.9.2001 was number justified.
The companypassion shown by functionaries of the appellant State by giving appointment to respondent on companypassionate ground under die in harness scheme was nullified by a subsequent order.
The respondent questioned legality thereof before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.
Prior to the modification there was numberembargo on a person getting appointment under the companypassionate appointment scheme, even though one of his parents was in service at the time when the other expired.
12196/2002 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.
Factual position is almost undisputed and brief reference thereto would suffice.
Arising out of SLP C No.
Father of respondent while in service died on 21.12.1996.
The modification was done in view of a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Prior to that i.e. on 22.8.1996 the policy relating to companypassionate appointment as was inoperative earlier was modified.
