HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH: BU-ASPUR Writ Petition (Sl No. 4660 of 2008 PeUtioner Ku.Shanta Ramteke, S/o. Late Keju Ramteke, aged about 26 years, r/o. of Village Achholi, Post Aamgaon, Tehsit Dongargaon, Distrsct Rajnandgaon Respondents Versus 1) Stete of Secretary, Department, (CG). Chhattisgarh through School Education D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur 2) District EducaUon Officer, Ra|nandgaon, DistrictRajnandgaon(CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the ConstituUon of India.) SB: Hon'bte Mr. Saflsh K. Agnihotrt, A Present: Mr. Anoop Majumdar, AdvQcatS fer the petffioner. Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on this 30 day of March,2009) The case of the petitioner is that the father ef the petitioner namely Kejuram Ramtekeworking as peon inthe GovernHient Giris Hgher Seraandary School, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, died on 19-9-2003 (Annexure P/1) in harness. The petitioner, being a dependent in the family of late Keruram Ratdeke, made an application on 6-10-2003 (Annexure P/2) fer appointment on compassionate basis on the ground that the petitionar has no sources of income and financial condiUon of her family is pathetic and her brottier is also living separately, but the said application was rejected byorderdated25-3- 2g08 (Annexure P/5) on ttie ground that the elder «)n of th®deceased Kejuram Ramteke IsalreMlyin Govemmentservice. 2) Mr. Majumdar, leamed counset appearingfor the petitioner submitsthat the rejecUon ofthe application of thepefitioner is n<rt in acconlance ^A^th law. The petWoner has made an applicatipn for compassionate appolnbnent on the ground that there is no eaming member in her family and her broth^r is reading separatety who is in government service right from the time when tote Kejuram :-i--S3-S.i •;^;Sl^S=i3!5asSg5S ;^i'^»wy'£Si^Ky(yffrii»r»E^ ::sai'sSBMBgiaS ^j^&; -.2-' Ramtrke was alive, but the respondent authwifes have not considered the application fited bythe petitioner on compassionate basis. 3) Be that asit may, it is well setUed that compassionate ground is neta method of recruibnent, but isa facilttyto provide for immedlate rBhabilitationof the family in distress for relieving the dependent family membere of ttie deceased employee from destitution. In other woKls,the- object of compasstonate appointment is to enable penurious famlly to tlde ovw ttie sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. 4) In Wa/yanaSteteSe<rfrfcft(fSoanrfandanefAervs. HalflmSlngh1Vw Supreme Court held ttiat "the whole objeet ef any compassiQnate appointmwrt schemes is to gh/e succor to ttie family to tide over the suddwi financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of Vne untimely demise of tts sole eaming membere." 5) In the matter of Stete ofManlpw vs. Md.RsSaodln Vne Supreme Court, after having heard various cases on compassionatBappointmcnt, observed as under: "11. In Smfe Sushroa Gosam ancf Of& v.Unoa oflncSia aoAOrS. ff989 fi<i) SCe 488) tt was observed U)Ert in all clatms of appojnhneht ori compassionate grounds, Uiere should nrt be any delay in appointment. Th® purpose of providing appointments on compassionate ground is to mitigate e hardsMp due to deathof the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the femily in disfress. Th®tect that ttie ward was a minorat the time of death of hjs father is no ground, unless the scheme Mself envisage speciflGally otherwise, to state that as and when such minor bscomes a major he can be appointed wlthout any time consciousness or limit. The abwe view was reiterated in PhoolwaV (Smt) v. Uniqn of IwSa and ors. (1991 Sufv(2)SCC689jandUnk>noflrKllaand ora. V. Bhagwan Singh (1995 (6) SCC 476). In Director of EducsBon (Secwstory) and Anr, v. Piishpenclfa Kumar wxi Ors. (1998 {5) SGC 192)'Awss observed that in matter of compassionate appointment ttiere cannot be insistence for a particutar post. Out of purely humanitarian eonsideratton and having regard to the factthat unless somesource oflroelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, provistons are made for givingappolntment to one tf. the dependants of the decsased who may be eligible m jy.- '(1997)S~SCC85 2AIR2003SCW4339 iL q^?^""SG3EZ Wi li-'iltoiUiSEiiriu --? for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to flie geneial provisions does not unduly hterfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been availabte, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds ofthe dependant of the deceased employee. As "rt is in the nature of exception to ttie general provisions it cannot substtota the provision to whfeh it is an exceptton and ttiereby nullify the main provision by taking away comptetety the rightconferred bythe main provision." 6) TheSupremeCourtinthecaseofStateofJAKam/othersVs.S^acf Ahnwd Mh9, Inpara 11 has hetd as under: "11.......it is that such an appeinbnent is an ®<ceptionto the general rule. Normally, an employmsnt In the Government or other public sedorsshould be open to all eligibte candidates who can come forward to apply and complete with each other. It is in consonanee with fisScie 14 of the ConstituBon. On the basis of competithw merits, an appointment should not be departed from except where compelling cireumstances demaBd.sych as, death of the spte bread wnner, the Tamsly sunrtved and ttie family suffering because of the setback. Once ft is proved that inspite of the death of the breadwinner, ttie famUy survived and substanUal penod is over, there Is nd necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show fewour to one at fte cost of the intereste of several others ignoring the mandate ef Article 14 of ttieConstitution." 7) Apptying well settled principle of lawto the fects of the case and also fte fact that the son of the deceased Kejuram Ramteke, who is in gtwemment service, granting appointment on compassionate basis would defeat the very purposeof comfassionate appoinbnent. ^w. 8) In view ofthe foregoing, there is no mwit in ttiis casa. The peUtion is accordingly dismissedsummarily. Noorder asto coste. 9) Consequently, I.A.No.1 alsostands dismis^d. ^"^Bcl s^^ 2006 (5) SCC 766