•i'fe... •'•""-' ZN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) PETJTIONER Writ Petltion No.-S'^/ ^/2002,. Avadhesh Tiwari.aged about 26 years,s/o Late Jagannath,Resident of Khajuri Tiwari,Post Offic^r Langara Bazar.Distt.Devariya (U.p.) .^'' .**n *- '^ k^F^ K<.v'c RESPONDES'iTS VERSUS : Lw State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Sceretary, General Adminj.strat-i.ve Deoartment Raipur (C.G.). (2) Director of the Bducation D.K.S.Bhawan.Raipur (C.G.) (3) District Education Officer, J'ashpur Nagart Chhattisgarh). V PETIT10N UNDER ATRI.CLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDJA XI-HC-22 •s^ ^i<)ifi<), ^•dl'yiiis, i'l'niwy ^......im 311^1 "qil ft-li* 3Iis?I ^•ql^i^^t sn^f '^giWHfei .^ 16-12-2005 sought compassionate a(>pointment Shri R.K. Tiwari, Advocate for thk Shri Sandeep Dubey, Govt. Heard. By this petition underArticle petitioner has Brief facts are that the father ofl Education Dspartment, who died on his death, the petitioner was minor. petitioner applied for (Annexure-P/2). The said application (Annexure-P/7). Thereafter, the which is_highly belated. No reasonab) long delay. !t has to be remembered ground is not a source of requirement of making appointment^ merits. Basic intention is that oh th^ family is not deprived of the means o{ famiiy to get over sudden financial crisit In Life Inswance Corporation of ^petitioner. Advjscate for the State of Chhattisgarh. J26/227 ofthe Constitution of India, the compassi4nate pres^nt Courts cannot confer benediction imb make appointments on compassionat^ in respect thereof do not cover and con| '+l^fyl'i'-) tlllcff'? 1^3t <rat$i< ^siPaHsn^i the petitioner was Assistent Teacher in 11/3/1985 white in service. At the time of On attaining the age of majority, the appointment on 12/10/2000 sjras rejected vide order dated 22/3/2001 petition was filed in the year 2003, |e exptanation has been ofl'ered for such th^it the appointment on compassionate reeruitrtient but merely an exception to the on open invitation of application on death of the employee concerned his livelihood. The object is to enable the findia vs. AshaRamcbhandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and another reported in f199^) 2 SCC 718, it was pointed out that im^elled by sympathetic consideratton to grounds when the regulations framed |emplate such appointments. [lit^^Sw T ^s^ XI-HC-22: ^53 •snqRra, e>Ti1+i4i<», fawi'ay '^-'^<a : *41*<CTI tt)t]i<»)"""""""" '"" ^F^ 200 isre^g----"-"-"""" sn^i^ii Wi* .3)^1 5^H <lEi^! ...^»t! SSSfui ' •:."..s.' nthe case of Smt. Sushma G^sain and others vs. Unton ofindia.and others reported in (1989) 4 SCC 408 'it was observed that in all claims of ijids, there should not be any delay in appointment on compassionate grouiji appointment. The purpose of providin^ isto mitigate the hardship due to deat^ appointments should, therefore, be prij in (jistress. Ths fact that the ward vjras a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, urfless the Schenfe itself envisages speciflcalty otherwise, to state that as an when such minor without any time consciousness or limi< The above view was reiterated Union of IndiS and.Others reported ir^ becomes a major he can be appointed Pustsoendra Kumar and others report the factthat unlesssome source of li\| be able to make both enfls meet, pro<| to one of the dependants of the apppintment. Care has, however, to •^pfepfrl IWcil' "S fe^ •tfatZK ^; AfFiftl SIKW appointment on compassionate ground ofthe bread-earner in the family. Such yided immediately to redeem the family in the cases of Phoo/ WaS fSmt) ys. 1991 SUDD f2) SCC 689 and Union of India andothers vs.Bhaawan Sinah r^ported in (1995)6 SCC 476. In the case of Director gf E^ucaSon fSecondarv) and acgSier vs^ d in (1998) 5 SCC 192'Awas observed that in matter of compassionate appoihtment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanit^rian consideration and having regard to elihood is provided the fan*'./ would not 'isions are made for giving appointment deceased who may be eligibte for be teken that provision for ground of compassionate em^loyment which i^ in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduly persons who are eligible for appointm4nt to seek appointment'against the post which would have been available, bu< interfere with th®right of those other for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionatB grouiiids of the dependant of the deceased [^^firt XI-HC-22 ^Eg-snq^fq, ^•dl'y'iiB, feirey ^ SSI^ SIICT^iT ft-li* 311^1 wN?'gfei ,--^- H/Gowri !M '? ^ sii^i ^RnwBf?g 7- employee. As it is in the nature of exce|3tion to the general provisions, it cannot substitute the provision to which it is a(i exception and thereby nullifythe main provision by taking away completely th4 right conferred by the main provision. In the case of Commfesforrer oVl Vishwanath reported in JT 2005 (8) S same view. The Apex Court in the ca^e of Nalional Hvclmelectric Power Corporation andanother vs. Nanak Ctiand and another reported in 2004 AIR SCW6339 has also held as under: exception to the requi Basic intention is that concerned his family is| livelihood. The object i^ ^t'^vf^i ^lWWt* ^ 1iTSt ^R^t< ^siPaqsii^i • Public Instructions and others vs. K.R. 33 also the Apex Court has taken the "It is to be seen that th^ appointment on compassionate ground is not a sourc^ of recruitment but merely an ement regarding appointmente being made on open in^itation of application on merits. on the death of the employee not deprived of the means of to enabte the family to get over sudden financial crises." Having considered the facts arjd circumstances of the cases, material on record and in view ofthe law laid (jown by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, not a case for exercising extra<)rdinary jurisdiction bythis Courtunder Article 226/227 of the Constitution af India. The petition fails and is accordirjgly dismissed. [^^firt €