NM AFK /‘ ~ 9; 1: w/ 7~ 1207 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition [SI No. 7144 of 2009 Petitioner Chandra Shekhar Prasad Gupta Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others Single Bench: Hon’ble Shn' Satish K. Agnihotri, J. and 2. Shn' M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 Shri Somna‘rh Vanna; Advocate for the peu’tioner. Heard. 1. The petitioner, being dependent son of late Shri Gopal Prasad Gupta, who while working as Assistant Teacher, died in hanless on 26.9.2000, made an application for appointed on compassionate basis. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III by order dated 5.7.2005 (Annexure P] 3). 2. Lealned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the post of Shiksha Kaimi is a temporary post. In View of the Circular dated 12th February, 2008 (Annexure P,’ 4) the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on a regular post i.e. Assistant Grade-HI. 3. Be that as it may the law on compassionate appointment is very clear. The appoinnnent on compassionate basis has been held by a catena of decisions as a backdoor entry. Compassionate appointinent depends on the availability of the posts and other considerations. It is well settled that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but, is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appoinunent is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. 4. It is also well settled that mere death of the employee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment if the family members could fas‘nstain themselves nnancially from other sources of income. The compassionate appointment is'granted only in the event, if an employee dies in harness and on account of sudden death, the dependent family ' has become penurious on sudden demise of the bread earner of the I o R D E R (Oral) (Passed on this 7m day of December, 2009) \, 01? family. The compassionats appointment itself is a backdoor entry. It is a departure from the general rule of employment, as provided under the provisions of Axiicle 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointment on compassionate basis is not in accordance with the - constitutional scheme of employment but in order to sub—serve the above stated purpose. This provision has been made under the Rules named by the State Government. (see Commissioner of Publie Instructions and others vs. K.R. Vishwanath’, State of J & K and others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mite, National Institute of Technology and others Vs. Niraj Kuma: $ingh3} The further contention of the petih'oner is that several other similarly situated persons have been appointed on the post of Assistant Grade—III {Annexure P/S). This amounts to discrimination as the petitioner also stands on the same footing. As stated above, the law on compassionate appoinnnent is very clear. It has been held that the appointment on compassionate basis is not a legal appointment but it is a backdoor entry and as such, whether the petitioner can claim regular appointment on the post of Assistant Grade —III and any right is accrued to him, is a question involved in this petition. Having regard to the case on hand that the appointment of the petitioner is not in accordance with the constitutional scheme by inviting applications from the public at large, he has been appointed on compassionate basis to provide for immediate succor to the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution, the petitioner has no right either to be appointed on regular basis or a particular post according to his choice. The circular dated 12th February, 2008 (Annexure P/4), wherein it is provided that the dependent of the regular employee may be granted appointment on regular establishment is concerned, that may be against the constitutional scheme, as it has been held that compassionate appointment is a backdoor entry. Thus the contention of learned counsel that the other similarly situated employees have been appointed to the rggular post, hence non—appointment of the petitioner on regular post is .wifff i. l J I ‘J ’ if”? \ J 2 (2005) 7 scc 206 (2006) 5 soc 766 3 (2007} 2 scc 481 discriminatory and violau’ve of the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is non‘ced to be rejected. 9. The law is very settled that the parity can ‘be claimed only on a positive effect. The Supreme Court in General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan Vs. Laxmi Devi and others4 , in para 34 obsexved that “Submission of the leanled counsel that persons similarly situated have been appointed is again of not much relevance. Apart from the fact that the High Oourt in its impugned judgment did not proceed on The said basis, it is now well settled that Article 14 of the Constitution of India carries with it a positive etl'ectt Equality clause cannot apply in a case where it an'ses out of illegality.” In View of the foregoing, I do not nnd any merit in the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. r , ,_ y ,_Sd/' i y Satish,K.,Aginiiiotri ‘ ';LJiitige. L Thakur ‘ ',