t^'^1 ^., f1^^. t1(;( HIGH OF CHHATTSSGARH : BiLASPUR 13} HO. 44 OF 2009 Ajit Kumar Nair. 41 years. S/o Shri P.G.K. Nair, Shiksha Karmi Gr. 111, Govt. Primary School, Kapri Kaia, Rajnancigaon, Chhattisgarh. 2. Versus The of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, PWD Department, Ministry D.K.5. Bhavan, Raipur(CG5. The Superintending Englneer, PWD, Durg Cirde, Durg. 3. The Coliector, Rajnandgaon. 4. Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Assistant Grade ill, C/o The Exeeutive Enginoer, R/VD (B&R), Djvision, Khalragarh, Rajnandgaon (CG). 0/Vrit under Articie 226 of the Constitutlon of SJngSe Bench : Hon'bSe Shri Satish K. Agnlhotri. J. :- Shri Verma, counsel for t'ne Shri Pankaj Shrivastava. Panel Lawyer for the State. (Passed on this 19m day of Rflarch, 2008) Accordingto iearned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was compassionate apppintment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-lli on account of of his mother nameiy, Smt. C.K. Nair. who died on 19-8-1998. in harness. whiie working In the respondent Department. Thereafter. the several before the respondent and to grant reguiar appointment on the post of - !1{ and the consequentlai benefits thereof, but tilt no has been taken. Shri Verma further submits that the reguiarisation of the respondent No.4 In the respondent Department on the post of - !il Is iilegal, as his appointment on the post of dajly is not in accordance wjth iaw and the s-ame is unconstitutional appointment. It is prayed that the appointment of respondent No.4 may be and the same may be to the petitioner herein. -^- ^ IIIKNNK, 2) ! have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. From the circuiar dated 1-5-2(X)0 issued bythe Generai Administration Department, Govemment of Pradesh, it reveals that compassionate appointment can be granted on the post of Shiksha Karml. The relevant portion of the sald drcujar reads as under: SC^K ftFT m ar^^Tf R^Rd ^t vii ^qNt- ^^NT R^Ra 3js^<b/ai^R*i grcr mf^r ^h^cfT ^ ^R ^ RMdH ^K ^^-2 (Rf^T ^^11 fN^). ftlCT^f ^IT ^c^ ^ TR IR it^uff 'H^ft i " 3) Be that as it may, it is weil principle of law that the appointment on compassjonate ground is not a method of recruitment, but js a facJSity to provide for immediate rehabiEitatson of the fami!y In distress for reSieving the dependent famiiy members of the de.ceased employee from destitution. in other words, the object of compassionate appointment js to penurjous family to tide over the sudden financjal crisis and js not to provide empioyment. 11 is also weil settled that mere death of the employee does not entitie his famiiy to claim compassionate appointment jf the famiiy members could sustain themselves financiaJSy from other sources of Income. 4) in the matter of Haryana State Etectricjty Board and another vs. h'akim Singh1 the Hon'bte Supreme Court held that "ths whole object of any compassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the famiiy to tide over the sudden financiai crisis befaSlen the dependants on account of the untimeiy demlse of its soie eaming member." 5) The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodln2, aftsr having hsard various cases on compassionate appointment. observed as under: "11. in Smt Sushma Gosaln and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. {1989 (4) SCC 468} it was obsen/ed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there shouid not be any d^lay in appointment. Th©purpose of providing appolntmsnts on compassionate ground Is to mitigate the hara'ship due to death of the bread- earner in the family. Suoh appointmente should, 1 2007 ASR5CW 6060 2ASR2003SCW4339 -3- ^ % 1 therefore, be provided immediatejy to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage speoificaily otherwise, to statethat as and when sueh minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time conseiousness or limlt. The above vtew was relterated in pnoofwatl (Smt) v. Unson of India & Ors. {1991 Supp (2) SCC 689} and Union offndia & Ors. v. Bh^wan Singh {1995 (6) SCC 476). In Dredor of Edwstion (Secone^ry) & Aw. v. Pushpendm Kumar & Ors. {1998 (5) SCC 192}, it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian eondderation and having regard to the factthat unless some source of !lveilhood is provided the famlly wouid not be able to make both ends moet, provjsions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may b©©ligiblefor appoiniment. Care has, however, to be taken that provislon for ground of compassionate emptoyment whlch is in the nature of an exception to the general provlsjons does not unduly interfere ^vith the right of those other persons who are etigibie for appolntment to seetc appointment against the post whlch would have been avaiiabie, but for the provisjon enabling appointment being made on compasslonate grounds of the dependant of the deceased ©mploy@@,As It Is in the nature of exception to the general provislons it cannot substltute the provision to which it is an exception and thereby nuSIify the main provision by Saking away completely the right conferred by the main provision." 6) In th@ matter of Stete of J & K and others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after having considered ail the aspects of compassionate appointment. in 1 1 observed as under:- "11...... it is that such an appointment Is an exeeption to the goneral ruje. Normally, an employment in ttie Government or other public sectors shouid b©op©nto all @tigibi©candidates who can come forward to spply and compete with each other. it is in consonance with Articie 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general ruie should not be from ©xc©ptwhere compeltirsg circumstances demand, such as death of the soje breadwinner and ilkellhood of the family suffering because of 5 SCC 766 -M- Thakur the setback. Once it is proved that in spits of the death of the breadwinner, the femily sumved and is over, there Is no necessity to say "goodbyo33 to th@ normal rul©of appointmant and to show favour to one at the cost of the of severa! ot'ners ignoring the mandate of Article 14 ofthe Constitution." 7) Applying the weli settied princlpies of law to the of the case on wherein after the of the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner was compassionate appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-ill and he has no right to ciaim that on a particuJar post he should be compassjonate appointr?ient. Thus. the petitloner does not any re!ief. The is being devoid of and any substance. 8) As observed, the compasslonate appointment Is -a backdoor entry, not through proper and not In accQfdance with the constitutional of appointment. Sjmilariy situated ejlgibie havs not opportunity to in the process of seiection for on the post of Shiksiia Karmi. !t has been held by a catena of that appolrstment de hors the constitutional scheme of is not and no right accrues in favour of the empioyee to daim reinstatement, continuation or regujarization in setvtee. Thus. the having appointed -as -Shiksha Karmi on compassionate has no rightto regularisation. 9) The Supreme Court in Sonkar Vs. Union of and others4 observed as under : "34. it is not a vrfhere appolntment was jrregular. if §nappointment js jrregular, the same can be regularizect. The court may not take serious note of an irregyiarity within th@ m@aning of th© provlsions of the Act. But if an appointment js iliega!. it js non est In the eye of law, whlch renders the appointment to be a nuility." 10) In vlew of the foregoing. the petjtion Is Jjable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismjssed. No order asto costs. _- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 4 {(2007) 4 SCC 54}