IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T ) No.6388 of 2008. Date of Decision: 19.10.2010 Sandeep Sharma …Petitioner. Versus. H.P. K.V.V. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Lokinder Thakur, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) The petitioner had filed this O.A. before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal this case has been transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008. The undisputed facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was employed in the respondent-University. He died while in service in the year 1993. Thereafter, the petitioner, who was a graduate, applied to the respondent for being given compassionate appointment under the kith and kin policy as applicable to the University. He had applied for the post of Technical Assistant. However, vide Annexure A-2 dated 10th February, 1995 the petitioner 2 was offered appointment as a Clerk in the scale of ` 950-1800. The petitioner accepted this appointment and continued to work as such but after joining started making representations that he should have been appointed as a Technical Assistant since being a graduate he was entitled to be appointed as such. He also made reference to the case of one Smt.Promila Sharma who had been given compassionate appointment as Beldar and then adjusted as Peon and finally appointed as clerk. This Court has repeatedly held that compassionate appointment cannot be a substitute for regular appointment. A person seeking compassionate employment does not have to compete with any other persons. The purpose of giving compassionate appointment is to allow the family to tide over the difficulties especially the financial difficulties faced by the family of a deceased employee. No person seeking compassionate appointment can, as a matter of right, seek either employment or employment to a particular post. The petitioner when he was offered appointment as a Clerk willfully accepted such appointment. If he was not willing to join he should not have accepted the post of clerk but after having accepted the appointment as a clerk he cannot be permitted to turn around and claim that he should have been given appointment only as a Technical Assistant. Appointment to a Class-III post can only be made in case there are vacancies available. At the relevant time whether there was a vacancy or not has not been 3 alleged nor proved in the case. Even assuming otherwise once the petitioner had accepted the appointment as a clerk it does not lie in his mouth to turn around and say that he should have been appointed as a Technical Assistant. Coming to the next question of discrimination vis-à-vis Ms.Promila Sharma, I find that she was appointed as a Beldar some time before 1987 and her designation from Beldar was changed to that of Peon in the year 1987. It is not disputed that the scale of Peon and Beldar is the same. Probably because she was a lady and no change in pay was involved it was decided to change her designation from Beldar to Peon. As far as her appointment as a clerk is concerned, this appointment was made on 23.2.1988 vide order Annexure A-15. This appears to be a fresh appointment. The appointment letter Annexure A-15 does not show that the said appointment is made under the kith and kin policy but it shows that the Board of Management of the respondent University took a conscious decision to relax the educational qualification in favour of Ms.Promila Sharma. Therefore, I feel that her case cannot be compared to that of the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is dismissed. No costs. October 19, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.