^ti\: <fi \ "i r~~ <^)-- ^CTO IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. Of2007 PETITIONER Raj Kuinar Pradhan S /o Late Shri Anurag Das Pradhan, aged about .-\-\"."/^> 25 years, Resident of VUlage 0-^A IA/C^ ..••"° Ghanwa, post ofBce Tilai, Tahsil ,^^^ ^*^" 0-;.\-" Janjgir , District Janjgir Champa (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : l.The State of ChhatUsgarh, through the Secretary , School Education Department, Mantralay D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). PubUc Instructions, Raipur (CG). ^C'!J>' ' ^2- The Director, 3<&^,g'/ ._ PubUc Instructi ^l^ ~j^^ «ft> r.v>'s-^ 3. District Education Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (CG). 4. Block Education Officer, Block Akaltara , District Janjgir Champa(CG). ^- ^°v' 1JOS^,s F5?S3^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ^S^o'f^ •'.:••'\\rm CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT/WRITS, ORDER/ORDERS, ^ani DIRECnON/DIRECTIONS ETC. IN THE NATURE OF ^ XP<;sil^1,01'.^y MANDAMUS '%4s>-&i.^sy t^\ ) ^F^ s^t.^ HI6H COURT OF JUMCATI^tE CHHATTISSAKH: BILASPUR Single Beneh; Hon'ble Shri Satlsh K. ^gnihotri". J. W. P. fS) No. 786 of 2007 Petitioner : Raj t&imar Prodhan Verajts The State of Chhattisgarh & others Mr. Sary Mukhopddhyay, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. 5unita Jain, Panel tawyer for -the respondents/State. OR&ER O'assed on this 9th day of Ft&ruary, 2007) 1. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the father of 1+ie petitioner, namety, Shri Anurog Das Prodhan, was working as Assistant Teacher in the School Education Department and was posted at Primary School Taga, Block AkaStara, t>istric+ Janjgir-Champa, wtien he died on 25.12.1994 in hamess. ¥- 2. TT>e petitioner, being one of the dependants-legol hairs of the deceased, made an qipfication for oppointment on compassionate basis to •the req>ondent No.4 in +he nsonth of Juiy, 2004. The case of the petitioner was recommencted to the respondent No. 3, but the respondents have not yet granted compassionate qipointmenl to the petjtwner. ; 3. Leamed counsel oppearing for the petitioner submits ttiat the petitioner is entitled to appointment on compossionate basis. 4. The petitioner hos filed this petition w'rih unexpbined and inordinate delay. seeking a direction to tiie re^iondents to grwit compassionate appointment on 1he post of Assistiint Grade-TTL. The father of the petitioner died on 25.12.1994 and the petitioner opplied for compassionate appointment in the month of July, 2004. 5. It is well settled -that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but. is a facility to provide for rehabiiitation of the family in distress for reiieving ths famity members of ihe deceased employee from destitution. In other words. tiie object of compassionate appointment is to enabte penurious family to tide over the sudden financiat crisis and is not to provide employment. It is a!so well settied that mere dea+h of the empSoyee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment if the ¥- family members could aistain themselves financialfy from other sources of income. 6. In Haryana Stat®Etsetrieity Board and anothar Vs. Hakim Singh , the Supreme Court he!d that "the whote object of any compassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the famiiy to tide over the sudden financial crisis befatlen Itie dependents on account of the untimely of its sole eaming member." 3 7. The Supreme Court in the case of State of J & K and others Vs. Sayad Ahmd ttir^, 'in para 11 hos held os under :- "ll-..-..-.-.it is that such on appointment is an exception to the generol rule. Normally, an employment in the Sovernment or other public sectors shouid be open to all eligibSe omdidates who can come forwwd to appfy and compete with eo.ch other. It is in consonanee wil+i Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appom+ment shoutd be made to pubiic offic®.This generof rule should not be depar-ted from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the soie breadwinner and iitelihood of the family sufferin9 because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the bnaadwinner, -t+ie family survived and substcntial period is over, 1+iere is no necessvty to say "goodbye" to the normai rule of appointment cnd to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of severat others ignoring the mca'idate of Articte 14 of the Constitution.'1 Bably 8. In view of tiie above settted prmciples of law, there te no merit in this '> petition. The petition is accordingiy dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1. (1997) 8 SCC 85 (2006) 5 SjCC. 766