Preferential right of appointment

Claim of appellant was that he applied for appointment against 20% quota reserved for children of in-service employees but his case was not properly considered

Validity

Appointment was to be made on the basis of inter-se merit of children of employees to be fixed keeping in view the priorities mentioned in para. 1 of the notification in question wherein the children of deceased and retired employees had to be given priority over the children of in-service employees

Appellant was not entitled to be considered for appointment along with or in preference to the said categories and had to be considered when the candidates in the said categories had been exhausted

Notification challenged by appellant was based on a policy decision which could not be called in question through constitutional jurisdiction unless the same was violative of the Constitution Fundamental Rights, law or suffered from illegality, arbitrariness or established mala fides

Reasonable classification had been made by giving priority to the children of employees who no longer remained in service over the children of serving employees which itself was made on the basis of intelligible differentia and reasons for making such classification was beyond the scope of determination by High Court as the said classification was not in conflict with any prevailing law

Intra-court appeal was dismissed.

Petitioner had served for 13 years as temporary Lamberdar on such post without any complaint of default of Government's dues on his part

Petitioner owned 16 kanals land, which was less than respondent, but would be sufficient to be used as surety for payment of dues collected on behalf of Government

Petitioner had experience of recovering and depositing money in Government Treasury due to which he had a preferential right of becoming Lamberdar over respondent who did not have such experience

High Court accepted constitutional petition in circumstances.