CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16444 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 17 ,2011 Jaswinder Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Food Corporation of India, New Delhi and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. M. S. Kang, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The father of the petitioner, while working in FCI, had died on 11.3.2001. While relying upon the policy formulated by the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner has made an application for compassionate appointment. When his claim was rejected on 8.7.2009, he has filed this writ petition to challenge this order. As per the respondents, no appointment has been made on compassionate basis since 2000-2001. Though as per the policy, 5% posts out of direct recruitment can be filled on compassionate CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16444 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: ground but the same are to be filled on the basis of policy so framed and if turn of the person does not come for appointment in three years, then the list is given a go-bye. The submission by counsel for the petitioner that one person was appointed in the year 2006 after the date of application of the petitioner is explained by counsel for the respondent by pointing out that the said person was appointed in different category where appointment can be made by the Regional Manager whereas the petitioner had applied for Class IV post, appointment for which could be offered at Centre level. The compassion, which can be shown to a person, would lose much of its significance after passage of time. Death of the father of the petitioner was in 2000-2001. At this stage, issue of compassion can really not come under consideration. I do not see any infirmity in the action of the respondents. The procedure adopted is being fairly applied. No case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. March 17,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE