SCA/21220/2003 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 212 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= ARIF Y MALEK - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PINAKIN M RAVAL for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 04/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the communication dated 06.10.1999 issued by the respondent, whereby the petitioner was refused to SCA/21220/2003 2/4 JUDGMENT grant appointment on compassionate grounds. 2. The father of the petitioner, who was working with the respondent died in harness on 27.07.1999. On 17.09.1999, the petitioner made an application requesting to appoint him on compassionate grounds. However, the petitioner received a communication dated 06.10.1999, from the respondent informing that his case for appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be considered. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. There is no dispute that the request for compassionate appointment was rejected in the 1999. However, the petitioner has approached this Court only in the year 2003, i.e. after a delay of about five years. There is not explanation forthcoming for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court. It is required to be noted that the purpose for providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the breadwinner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. Hence, the delay on the part of the petitioner shows that there was no crisis in the family, otherwise the petitioner would SCA/21220/2003 3/4 JUDGMENT have approached this Court without any delay. Even otherwise, the father of the petitioner was a Class-II officer and, therefore, the petitioner is also not entitled for compassionate appointment. 3.1. In the case of State of J & K and Others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir reported in 2006(5) SCC 766, the Apex Court, in a case of delay and laches in applying and approaching the Court for compassionate appointment, has held that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say “goodbye” to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interest of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14. Therefore, this Court is of the view that SCA/21220/2003 4/4 JUDGMENT the petition is devoid of any merits and requires to be dismissed. 3.2. Even otherwise, it is a settled law that the respondent is required to consider the application for compassionate appointment on the basis of the scheme which was prevailing at the time of application. This principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of SBI vs. Jaspal Kaur, reported in 2007(9) SCC 571 wherein it is held that the matter should be decided within the parameters of the scheme prevailing when the application for compassionate appointment was made. In that view of the matter, the ground taken by the respondent authority is just and proper and does not require any interference. 4. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any, stands vacated. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/