CWP No.15991 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.15991 of 2008 Date of decision: 9.9.2008 Surinder Lal ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Hira, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for direction to the respondents to appoint him as Kanungo on compassionate ground as his father died in harness on 25th November, 2006. It has been averred in the writ petition that after death of his father, the petitioner made a written request to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur for appointment on compassionate ground. A written request in this regard was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur on 18th January, 2007, Annexure P-2. The Deputy Commissioner thereafter sought clarification from the petitioner as regards his willingness to accept the post of Patwari being 10+2 qualified. However, the petitioner vide Annexure P-6 dated 20th March, CWP No.15991 of 2008 2 2007 conveyed that he may be considered for the post of Kanungo. The petitioner was thereafter offered the post of Patwari in the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160. The petitioner accepted this post on 30th April, 2007. The petitioner has averred that he had found out through channel of Right to Information Act that in District Hoshiarpur five posts of Kanungo were lying vacant, out of which two were from scheduled caste category to which the petitioner belongs. Thus, he may be appointed to the post of Kanungo as he is qualified and meritorious. The petitioner has also stated that discriminatory treatment has been met out to him as respondent no.3, whose father was also a Kanungo, had himself been appointed as Kanungo. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner accepted the appointment as Patwari and pursuant to that joined on the said post. The qualification of the petitioner is only 10+2; yet respondents taking a compassionate view have appointed him as a Patwari. The petitioner cannot turn around and lay claim for a higher post. In addition, in a case decided by this court bearing CWP No. 3106 of 2007, it has been held that a scheme which is formulated by the Government to provide succor cannot be used for furthering one's career prospects. The purpose of offering appointment on compassionate ground ends the moment a family member is appointed to a particular post to tide over the sudden financial hardships on the death of bread winner of the family. No cause of action survives thereafter. CWP No.15991 of 2008 3 In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the petitioner having been appointed as a Patwari, cannot now raise a grievance that he should have been appointed as a Kanungo. Despite the fact that his qualification is only 10+2, the respondents have shown compassion and appointed him as a Patwari. The compassion cannot be endless and the employer is not supposed to consider an employee for appointment at every stage, when a higher post falls vacant. We, thus, find no merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE September 09, 2008 'rajpal'