.^' (\<^ t' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIC^TURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Ei^-^Sj.Jl^^-'.'I-^Z^.0^ PETITIONER . -.^^^^^ ^•y/ss^' Mariyan Fransis S/0 L@te Joseph FrQnsis, aged about 42 years, R/0 at present C/0 M,De Bhalerao, Durgapara Santoshi Nagar.Raipur (C^G^) ^a^ •••""" RESPONDENTS VERSUS, 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary ^ Department of Home Manfcralya D<K<Se Bhavan, Raipur (C.Ge) Inspector General of Police Chhattisgarh Police Head- qaarter / Raipar (C.G,) The Superintendent of Police Raipur (c.Go) '^\ ' ..^"'' h@l; . ^^"' 1°) il^I3LPOTITI^?L.miDER-ARTICLE_2j6Z227_OP THE .CONSTITUTION ^_^_ —^.»-»»»«»—^.»»-»«»^.»—»<«,.-».—«««»-<«.««»»^^.—-< e»«»«a*««»«».^«».^. ^ II \^// OF_INDIA_FqR__ISS>UANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORA- FJ;/ f £l-EiAN.SAS2§-2^-.AN.I-^21SSS-.S21I^j3I^«2^ERS^B-2ISEC£I225 TO^DO_JUSTICE_IN__THEMATTER DETAIL OF THE PETITION s- ^. ..—^-——— :^ '°§ :\t^ &^^ 'K^ h^l^^-^^T: ll,"^'fc>(^,^0^<u-d a<J 1 ^LF-<^ 4, iShe'ffnioR of Snciia (. ^ fh.rough ^ of ^^^Bomalf. ?abli^ GriTaaaes^ Mew DelM. 5» Th@ State of MacSiya Pradesh Through •" Seeretasy. Ds^artment of Mome and POliee Affairs, Bho^al (M«P»)» KfNs £ 5::: :rT :. :urL XI-HC-22 STI^T^T t^ti^^n^T ^RT^T*^ftH -^^r '^IPTRTO, yTlly^i^, '^TR?y 3TST^zj^_ W^^II.^W^ 200 •1^^?' sn^T ^IT^R ^I^T 16-12-2005 Shri M.K. Bhaduri, counsel for tl{ Shri Sandeep Dubey, Govt. Heard. By this petition under Article 2j: petitioner has sought compassionate a( Brief facts are that the father Djstrict Forceat Raipur, who died orj death, the petitioner was given appoj 3/4/1971. Thereafter, on attaining the| 1/4/1979. After his discharge, the years and straight-away fiied the inst^ reasonable explanation has been offere It has to be remembered tN ground is not a source of requirement of making appointment^ merits. Basic intention 1s that on th< family is not deprived of the means of family to get over sudden financial crisii - !n L/'fe Insurance Corporation of insynt recruitrhent Courts cannot confer benediction imbelled make appointments on compassionat^ In respect thereof do not cover and conjtemplate In the case-of Smt Sushma Gc ^R^r^T ^m^f ^ fe^ I^?R ^ 3:[f^T?T S^F |e petitioner. Advjocate for the Stete of Chhattisgarh. SJ26/227 of the Constitution of lndia,the i^pointment. |of the petitioner was Consteble in ttie 11/10/1970 whilein service. After his Intment on the post of Boy Orderly on ageof majority he was discharged on p^titioner has not taken any steps for 23 petition, which is highly belated. No ^d for such long delay. ^t the appointment on compasstonate 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 10. • 'fndfa vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and another reoorted 'm {199^) 2 SCC 718, it was pointed out that by sympathetic consideration to grounds when the regulations framed such appointments. ^ain and others v§. UniQn offndia and -t- others reported in (1989) 4 SCC 46j? it was observed that in all claims of ['(ft^^fe^ XI-HC-22 ^^ '?S[PT[^[, ^frOTS^ ^^S^3< 3T1^1;X!^,^ \ . ^ ~\S^ V^SZ\€^- WR^TT^rqT^ ^^ 200 ^T^I' ^H^I^T 1<^i<=h 37li^T ^RNT^rii^ appointment on compassionate groun<| appointment. The purpose of providing is to mjtigate the hardship due to death appointmenfs should, therefore, be pro^ in distress. The fact that the ward w4i father is no ground, unless the Schemel to state that as an when such minor Iwithout any time consciousness or limjt. The above view was reiterated ^Union of Indiaand Others reported in 'sn^i'^H^R: ^rfN "L^ is, there shouid not be any delay in ippointment on compassionate ground rf the bread-earner in the family. Such ided immediately to redeem the family |is a minor at the time of death of his itself envisages specifically otherwise, bjecomes a major he can be appointed |n the cases of Phool Wati (Smt) vs. 1991 Supt> (2) SCC 689 aM Unjon_^ >ushpendra Kumar and others reportec appointment |hat in matter of compassionate ^articular post. Ouf of purely humanitar fche fact that unless some source of livel |3e able to make both ends meet, provi }io one pf the dependants of the ^ppointment. Care has, however, to jsompassionate employment which is Venerai provisions does not unduly {sersons who are eiigible for appointmer Iwhich would have been available, but ^eing made on compassionate groun< ^mpioyee. As it is in the nature of exceptlon ^N?rat^ •w^?r-?•ft(stT^R?R ^T aRTPm 3TE^¥1 ^ndia andothers vs. Bhaawan Sinah re^orted in ^995) 6 SCC 476. In the case of D/recfor of Eddication ^Secondary) and anofeer v^ in (1998) 5 SCC 192 it wasobserved there cannot be insistence for a |an consideration and having regard to ihood is provided the family woutd not ^ions are made for giving appointment |eceased who may be eligible for sje taken that provision for ground of jn the riature of an exception to the ^terfere with the right of those other i|: to seek appointment against the post F^r the provision enabljng appointment of the dependant of the deceased to the general provisions, it cannot ..4- [Tft^'^fe^ XI-HC-22 -5-^ ^TRRP?, '^iatOT?, t^TRTy o?,AM?>l<^- ^IH^JT ^MT^ 200 'tq^sr' SH^T^T l^rN'^ni^r ^W^^f^l H/Gowri -r ^.^^ ^ 311^1 ^CT^T'HfN \- substitute the provision to which it isahexception andthereby nullify the majn provision by taking away completely thi In the case of Commissioner o\ SCW 6339 has also held as under: Basic intention is that cfi?^{<rt4yi 'RTH^ff ^ fe^ ll^RSR ^r <3?f^? <3^T^? rightconferred bythemain provision. PubficJnstmctions andoffiers vs. K.R. Vishwanath reoorted in JT 2005 (8) SIC 33 also the Apex Court has taken the same view. The Apex Court in the ca|se of Nationaf Hvdfoelectric Power Coroofation and anothervs. NanakO^and and another reported in 2004 AIR "It is to be seen that th^ appointment on compasstonate ground is not a sourc^ of recruitment but merely an exception to the requ^ement regarding appointments being made on open. irjvitation of application on merite. j on the death of the employee concerned his family 14 not deprived of the means of tivelihood. The object i^ to -enabte the family to get over suddenfinandalcrises."! . «> Having considered the facte a^id circumstancesof the cases, material on record and in view of the law laid jdown by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, not a case for exercjsing extrejordlnary jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of lifdia. The petition fails and is accordijigly dismissed. ^ Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge [Tfr^^R^