(W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR E: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon’ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma, JJ. Writ Appeal No.325l201 1 Appellant Petitioner Uma Devi Das D/o. Late Shri Shivnandan Das Mahant, aged about 31 years, R/o. Village Kevari, P.S. & Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja (CG) Respondents State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, 'Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, Raipur (CG) Deputy Director, District Office, Panchayat & Social Welfare, District Jashpur (CG) Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) Chief Executive Ofncer, Janpad Panchayat, Bagicha, District Jashpur (CG) Writ Appeal under Section 2(1 ) of the Chhattiggarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench), Act 2005 Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla with Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsel for the appellant. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State/ respondents 1 to 4. ORAL ORDER (1 1 08.201 1 .) Heard on admission. The appellant has tiled this appeal against order dated 29‘“ March, 2011 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.799/2011 by the writ Court. By the impugned order, the writ petition tiled by the appellant \\for quashing of communication, by which, her application for f 2 W.A. No.325l201 1 compassionate appointment was dismissed by the concerned authority was communicated to her and aiso for direction to consider her representation for compassionate appointment was dismissed by the writ Court. 3. Father of the appellant died in hamess on 15.3.1997 and the appeiiant filed application for compassionate appointment on 14.02.2007. Her application was rejected by the competent authority and communication dated 20.02.2009 (Annexure-PI5 in the After the said communication, writ petition was tiled. The writ Court mainly took the view that the appellant applied for compassionate appointment after a period of ten years, therefore, delay was inordinate. The writ Court, in view of the above delay and also in view of the provisions of the Circular of the Government in this regard, dismissed the writ petition med by the appellant. 4. ln State of J 8. K and others vs. Saiad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5 scc 766, the Supreme Court held that :- “The compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. it is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitutton. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say “goodbye” to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14.” writ petition) was served upon the appellant. \ w .t. \\. 1\.\\ .V\ /é 3 . W./A. No.325l201 1 5. In the instant case, admittedly, application for compassionate appointment was filed after a period of ten years, and, the family of the deceased has survived even without the appointment of the appellant for such a long time. in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court , we are of the view that the writ Court was fully justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay of 10 years in tiling the application for compassionate appointment. 6. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and itvls hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/— l lSunilKumar Sinha L ‘fl‘ Judge l l Sd/n Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge