IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.17234 of 2006 Date of decision: August 18, 2008 Surendera Kumar -----Petitioner Vs. Mahendergarh Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Mahendergarh and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. NS Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. ND Kalra, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. SK Monga, Sr. DAG,Haryana for Respondent No.2. Mr. Rajiv Arya, Advocate for respondent No.3. Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of appointment of respondent No.3 made on compassionate basis. Further prayer is for a direction to appoint the petitioner. 2. Case set out in the petition is that father of respondent No.3 died in 1991 and after 13 years, he was offered appointment on compassionate ground on 26.5.2004. Father of the petitioner died on 26.4.2004 and he also made an application for CWP No.17234 of 2006 compassionate appointment. One Sanjay Kumar filed CWP No.13429 of 2004 challenging preferential right for compassionate appointment over and above respondent No.3. The writ petition was disposed of on 26.7.2005 directing the case of Sanjay Kumar and respondent No.3 to be considered. On 21.10.2005, the matter was considered and respondent No.3 was also given compassionate appointment. 3. The above facts have remained undisputed but appointment of respondent No.3 is sought to be justified on the ground that in the light of order of this Court dated 26.7.2005, case of respondent No.3 was considered. 4. It remains undisputed that father of respondent No.3 died in the year 1991 and respondent No.3 was not even eligible for appointment at that time. Mother of respondent No.3 was advised to apply after he attained the age of 17 years and it was stated that her right will be kept reserved. 5. It is settled law that public appointments are to be given by giving equal opportunity to all eligible persons under Article 16 of the Constitution but by way of exception, compassionate appointment can be given, as per applicable policy, to overcome the situation at the time of death of the employee or within reasonable time thereafter. No right of reservation can arise in the said category. Appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to enable the 2 CWP No.17234 of 2006 aggrieved family to get over sudden financial loss. Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138, Punjab National Bank and others v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, AIR 2004 SC 4155 and State of J & K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, AIR 2006 SC 2743. 6. In view of above, appointment of respondent No.3 cannot be justified in law. 7. This petition is allowed. Appointment of respondent No.3 is quashed. The Bank will be at liberty to take further action in the matter in accordance with law. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 18, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 3