THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 25629 of 1998 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the 1st respondent – Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India, Madras in not appointing the writ petitioner as Assistant Grade-III in the service of the Corporation as unconstitutional and consequently, to direct the respondents to appoint her as such with effect from 16th March 1981 with all consequential benefits. The husband of the writ petitioner, while working as a Typist with the Food Corporation of India, died on 30th June 1979, in harness. On compassionate grounds, the writ petitioner solicited appointment in the service of the Food Corporation of India. On 6th February 1981, the writ petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper in Class IV service of the Corporation instead of being appointed as Assistant Grade-III. Though the writ petitioner has pointed out the injustice meted out to her in this regard, the respondent-Corporation insisted that she should immediately join the post against which she is appointed and then take up the matter. In those circumstances, the writ petitioner appears to have joined the service of the Corporation as a Sweeper on 16th April 1981. As she possessed the necessary qualifications for holding the post of an Assistant Grade-III, she kept on representing, insisting that she should have been appointed as such instead of being appointed as a Sweeper. She initially filed Writ Petition No. 7269 of 1988 in this Court which was allowed on 12th August 1988. The respondents then carried the matter by way of appeal in Writ Appeal No. 1468 of 1988. That Writ Appeal came to be decided on 26th October 1989, directing the respondents herein to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment as Assistant Grade-III, instead of directing them to appoint her as such, as was ordered by the learned Single Judge. On 7th February 1990, the respondents have rejected her claim for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III. Calling in question the validity of this order, she again instituted Writ Petition No. 12987 of 1990. That Writ Petition was disposed of by order, dated 30th November 1990, directing the respondents to re-consider the case of the writ petitioner by taking into account the fact that she has passed SSC examination, which is the qualification necessary for recruitment to the post of Assistant Grade-III. Once again, the respondents have rejected her case. The 3rd Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 12632 of 1991 was filed by writ petitioner in this Court which was disposed of on 2nd July 1992 with a direction to the respondents to consider her case for appointment as Assistant Grade-III within a period of two months. Once again, the respondents have rejected her candidature for appointment as Assistant Grade-III. Since one individual by name Showkath Pasha was appointed as an Assistant Grade-III, with retrospective effect, and another person was directly appointed as Assistant Grade III, pursuant to the directions issued by Kerala High Court on the ground that those candidates also possessed the same qualification, namely pass in SSC, the writ petitioner again instituted the present Writ Petition. While considering offering appointments on compassionate grounds to one of the members of the dependants of the deceased employees, it is essential that instrumentalities of the State are not liable to practice discrimination. It is true that the dependants of the deceased employees have no right of choice for seeking appointment to a specific post in the service of the State or its instrumentalities, but, nonetheless, fairness requires that appropriate consideration should be bestowed before such appointments are made or offers are made to such dependants. The offer of appointment should not result in stultifying the status of the dependants of the deceased employee. The State and its instrumentalities are required to act fairly and reasonably. Merely on the ground that appointments made on compassionate grounds are not the normal modes of appointment recognized by law, they shall not resort to unfair or unreasonable methods of such appointments. The scheme of compassionate appointment deserves consideration of the claims and cases of any of the dependants, for being appointed as Assistant Grade-III, provided one possesses necessary qualifications prescribed therefor and provided further that such vacancies are available immediately. Cases of the dependants ought to have been considered for making such an appointment. If, on the other hand, there are no such vacancies immediately available and offering an appointment to the dependants is the most urgent requirement, perhaps, one can justify offering appointment in a lower class of office/post, but at the same time, the appointing authorities are not liable to indulge in pick and choose while resorting to making appointments on compassionate grounds. In other words, they cannot choose certain set of dependants of the deceased employees for making appointments to the post of Assistant Grade-III, while the other set of employees be chosen for making appointments against the lowest category posts in the service of the Corporation. These are all matters, which are in the domain of the employer, required to be observed for giving effect to a social welfare policy of providing minimum succor and assistance to the dependants of the employee, who died in harness, while in service. The essential philosophy that propelled such a policy decision to be taken by every model employer was that the society at large should not view the conduct of the employers, in not raising to the occasion to come to the rescue and help of the dependants of the deceased employees, with any disfavour. If an employee during his prime of youth and health contributes his very might to the growth and productivity of the organization, and dies later on in harness, it is but appropriate that the employer shall recognize the obligation to provide minimum assistance and security cover to the dependants of such an employee. It would help the dependants to tide over the hardships and hard times suddenly brought about by the disappearance of the sole breadwinner of the family. It will help them to rearrange their lives all over. Learned Standing Counsel for the Food Corporation of India has brought to my notice that through the Office Order No. 55/2009/RPI, dated 30th July 2009 of the Zonal Office (South), Food Corporation of India, Chennai, the writ petitioner is one of the several candidates, who has been promoted as Assistant Grade III. It was also further brought to my notice that the writ petitioner has also instituted another Writ Petition No. 13265 of 2009 virtually for the same relief and that this Court by its order, dated 18th August 2009 disposed of the matter in the following terms: “ Accordingly, without expressing any opinion as to the entitlement of the petitioner for appointment to the post in question, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.02.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.” In view of the subsequent development, which has been brought to my notice by the learned Standing Counsel that the writ petitioner has since been promoted as an Assistant Grade-III, I consider it appropriate to dismiss this Writ Petition only on the ground that the dependants of a deceased employee have no right to choose appointment against a particular post or vacancy and all such appointments on compassionate grounds have got to be made strictly in accordance with the terms of the policy/scheme laid down by the employer without any preferential treatment being meted out to select few. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 18th November 2009 ksld