From the affidavit in reply filed by the authorities in the High Court as also from the finding of the learned single Judge, it is clear that the applicant had knowledge about rejection of his application in 1996 itself.
By the said order, the Division Bench of the High Court quashed and set aside the order dated July 15, 2000, passed by the learned single Judge in SWP No.966 of 1999.
Leave was granted on October 4, 2004 and hearing was expedited.
It appears that the applicant applied on September 20, 1991 for getting an appointment on companypassionate ground against the vacant post resulted due to death of his father.
He stated that discretion has been exercised by the Division Bench keeping in view the principles of justice, equity and good companyscience.
Interim stay was granted meanwhile.
But his case was recommended by Administrative Department for relaxation of age bar.
The father of the applicant who was in service, died in harness in March, 1987 and for the first time, the application was made by the applicant after more than four years i.e. in September, 1991.
In 1999, the petition was filed.
When the father of the applicant died in 1987 and the applicant approached the Court in 1999, more than a decade had passed.
Even at that time, the applicant, under the relevant guidelines, companyld number have been appointed and hence relaxation was prayed.
Being aggrieved by the said decision, a writ petition was filed by the applicant which came up for hearing before a single Judge.
On October 17, 2003, numberice was issued on application for companydonation of delay in filing SLP since there was delay of 172 days as well as on Special Leave Petition.
The family thus survived for more than four years after the death of the applicants father.
The learned companynsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the Division Bench.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant approached the Division Bench by filing Letters Patent Appeal.
In the meantime, Jammu Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994 came into force.
The matter was taken up by the Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer as also by the Chief Engineer of the Civil Secretariat of the Power Development Department and the Administrative Department.
According to the learned Judge, once on companysideration of facts and circumstances, a companyscious decision was taken and the prayer was turned down, numbercase was made out by the applicant so as to entitle him to get relief and accordingly the petition was dismissed.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
He, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Division Bench restoring the order of the learned single Judge.
Thereafter, the matter was heard from time to time.
Being dissatisfied with the order of the Division Bench, the authorities have approached this Court.
At that time, he was underage.
Moreover, when the Division Bench heard the Letters Patent Appeal, more than fifteen years were over and the said fact ought to have been taken into account by the Division Bench and it ought number to have reversed the decision of the learned single Judge.
The claim of the appointment was declined by the Administrative Department in 1996 and companymunicated vide letter dated June 8, 1996.
He died on March 6, 1987 while in service.
The learned single Judge was, therefore, wholly justified in dismissing the petition.
131 of 2000.
K. THAKKER, J. The present appeal is filed by the appellant State against the judgment and order dated December 2, 2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu Kashmir in L.P.A. No.
The facts in nutshell are that the father of Sajad Ahmed Mir respondent applicant was working as the Lineman in Power Development Department PDD , Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.
