A.P. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH Cpram HON'BllE SHRt RAJEEV 6UPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, J. Writ Appeal No. 133 of 2008 APPELLANT te,/ <-K ./^, RESPONDENTS Santosh Kumar Singh, S/o Late Yadvendra Singh, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Kalahardi, Post Bada Hardi, Tahsil Sirmour. DistrictRewa M.P. (Petitioner) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(CG) (Respondent No.1) 2. The Conservator of Forest, Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. (Respondent No.2) 3. The Sub Divisional OffScer, Korea Forest Division, Baikunthpur, Distrtet Surguja C.G. (Respondent No.3) The Memo of Appeal Under Section 2 (11 of the Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act. 2006 Present Shri Rakesh Pandey, leamed counsel forthe appellant. Shri A.S. Gaharwar, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. JUDGMENT (7th July, 2008) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ.: Leamed counsel forthe partiesare heard on|.A. No.01/2008, an appljcation for condonation ofdelay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showjng sufficjent cause for the delay in fiiing the appeal. 3. I.A. No. 01/2008, therefore.isallowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 5. Appellant - Santosh Kumar Singh has filed this writ appeal agalnst the order dated 25-03-2008, passed in W.P.(S) No. 298/2008. 6. The appellant/petitioner in the writ petition sought writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment. 7. The appeilant's father sought voluntary retirement on 24-09-1994 as he was declared medically unfrt. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment on 26-09-1994 in accordance with the Circular dated 10-06-1^4. The appellant's application for compassionate appointment was dismissed by the State of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 29-09-2006, on the ground that the appellant was not entitled to get compassionate appointment in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 8. Learned Single Judge finding that the Circular dated 10-06-1994 under which the petitioner was seektng compassionate appointment was later withdrawn on 03-01-1995 and that a period of about 14 years has elapsed slnce the voluntary retirement of the ^,. petitioner's father, passed the impugned order whereby the appellant's writ petition was dismissed. 9. Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the Circular dated 10-06-1994 under which the appellant claimed compensation was withdrawn on 03-01-1995. Leamed counsel, however, submitted that the said Circularwas in force when the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on 26-09-1994. 10. The Apex Court while considering the desirability of providing compassionate appointment after the family of the Government Servant had survived for a considerableperiod in the case of State of J & K & Others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reported in (2006) 5 SCC- 766, observed jn para 11: "11 We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holdjng that he had sought "compassion", the Benchoughtto have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Govemment or other public sectors should be open to al{ eiigible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. Jt is in consonance with Article 14 ofthe Cofistitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment shoyld be made to pubiic office. Thisgeneral rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the soje 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 famHy survived and substantia! 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 interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution." J?.iC:;^1 ,^--""^J '^/ 11. The appellant's father sought voluntary retirement in the year 1994. The Circular dated 10-06-1994 providing for compassionate appointment to the dependents ofthe medically unfrt employees was later withdrawn by the State of Madhya Pradesh on 03-01-1995. Though the appellant had applied for compassionate appointment in the year 1994, the family of appellant's father induding the appellant has survived for a period of about 14 years till the writ petition was filed inthe year 2008. 12. On a cumulative consideration of the above-mentioned broad features of the case in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of J & K & others Vs. Sajad Ahamed Mir (supra), we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the leamed Single Judge which may warrant interference in this writ appeal. 13. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Subbu