1%-- -Cf^ !:S>^ :"^^ ,^'»% -<s' A<i? r\P"<'^-V \^-' ^ / C^ 15^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF WRIT PETITION (S.) No. L:1~L( ^/2011 PETITIONER Anupam Mishra aged about 22 years, S/o Late Narayan Prasad, R/o Village Janakpur, Tahsil Bharatpur, Distt. Koriya VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1 ^2 ^-3. /- 4. The State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Ministry of Tribal and Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur Commissioner, Adim Jati and Anusuchit Jati Vikas, Raipur Assistant Commissioner, Adivasi Vikas Koriya The Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Bharatpur, Development Block, Bharatpur, Distt. Koriya PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. Particular of the Petitioner :- As mentioned above in the cause title. 2. Particulars of the respondents : As inentioned in the cause title. 3. Particulars of the Cause/order against which the petition is made. Subject matter in brief :- S9 ::<a HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS T PETITiON ,/S) N0.1748 OF 2011 Anupam Mishra ^ Versus The State of Chhattisaarh & Others 0/Vrit Petition under Article 22S & 227 of the Constitution of India) Singte Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shri Sushi! Dubey, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 1 day ofApri!, 2011) 1. Heard tearned counsel for the Darties. 2. Chaiienge in this petition, is to the order dated 03/09/2009 (Annexure P/6) whereunder the aDDlication of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been dismissed on the ground that the case is 15 years 6 months o!d. Thus, no appointment can bearanted. 3. The facts, in nutsheil, as projected by the petitioner, are that the father of the oetitioner namelv Naravan Singh working on the oost of UDper Division Teacher, died in harness on 22/12/1993 (Annexure P/1). According to the petitioner, an application for compassionate aopointment was made on 28/03/1994 (Annexure P/2). On the said application, even the Principal of the Government Higher Secondary Schooi, Bharatpur (Janakpur), District-Surguja now District-Koriya, made a recommendation, but no action was taken on the application. The petitioner subsequently, again made a representation on 23/08/2009 (Annexure P/5) and further continued in making representations ti the imouaned order was oassed. R~ "s, ^ 'v / "b. '^-y i'v'^3xssav Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the appllcation was made in time, since no decision was taken on the appilcation, thus, the petitioner is entitied to grant compassionate appointment even today after 15 years ofthe death of his father. Be that as it may, firstiy the State Government by cireular dated 02/02/2006 has clarified that in case of comDassionate appointment, wherein fhe employee died between 01/11/1997 to 31/10/2000, would be entertained by the State of Chhattisgarh, as the State of Chhattisaarh came into existence on 01/11/2000 which was aDproved bv this Court in other cases. in this case, father of the Detitioner died in the vear 1993 and application was made in the year 1994 and no action was taken by the State of fcladhya Pradesh. Thus, the basic purpose of grant of compassionate appointment, which according to the well settled principle of law, is not an appointment in accordance with law and constitutional scheme of employment, is defeated. The subsequent action on the oart of various other officers was not within the scooe of their competence under the poiicy of the State Govemment. The apDilcation ofthe petitioner was rightlv rejected. Secondly, the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide succor and immediate relief to the dependents of the deceased empioyee, if the dependents have survived for a iong period of 15 years, there is no reason to grant an appointment on comDassionate basis. which is de-hors the constitutional scheme of empioyment. in Haryana State Electric'ity Board and another vs. Hakim Singh , the Supreme Court he!d that the whole object of any compassionate appointment schemes is to give succor to the famiiy 1 (•1^97) 8 SCC 85 to tide over the sudden financial crisis befailen the deoendents on account of the untimelv demise of its sole eamina members. The Supreme Court in State ofJ&K and offiiers Vs. Sajad Ahmed ,Wrz, in para 11 has hsld as undsr: "11.......it is that such an appointment is an excsption to the gsnera! rute. Norma!!'/, an empioyment in the Government or other publfe sectors should be open to al! ei'g'ble candidates who can come forward fo appiy and compiete with each other. It is in consonance with Articte 14 of the Constiiution. On e basis of competitive merits, an appointment shouid not be departed from except where compeiiing circumstances demand, such as, death of the soie bread winner, the famiiy sur»'ived and the famiiy suffering because of frie setback. Once it Is proved that inspite of the death of the breadv/inner, Uie family survsved and substantial period is over, there Is no necessity to say "goodbys" to the Rormai rute of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of severai others ignoring the mandate of Articie 14 of the Constitution." 9. in view of foregoing and appiying the well settled principles of iaw to the facts of the oresent case, the Detitioner does not deserve any relief. There is no merit in this petition. The petition is accordingiy dismissed. No order asto costs. SatishK. AgBihotri Arun 3) 5 SCC 766