HIGH COURT OF CHHATI’ISGARH AT BILASPUR Wrif Pz‘l’ifion Na. 3412 of 2004 WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ENDIA 5ingle aemh: Hon'ble Mr. satishk. Agnihmi, J. Shrl Subhosh Vadav, Advocal'e for fhe pefi’rioner. Shri Vashwan'r Singh Thakur, Depu‘ly Advecafe General with 5hri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for The responden‘ls No. 1 To 4. O R D E R 50ml) (Passed on this 23“ Day of June, 21309) 1‘ The peli‘rioner, by fhls Refi'lion, seeks quashing of ‘lhe order dalecl 23.5.1998 (Annexure P/B), passed by lhe responden‘l No.4- and ‘rhe order dafed 1.7.1998 (Armexure P/é), passed by The respondem No.5; Further, ‘l‘he pe‘l‘illoner seeks a direefion lo appoinl' the pelifioner on lhe pos’r of Assis’runf Teacher we‘f. 1.7.1998 wilh consequen‘llal benefi'ls. 2. The lndispui'able ‘fac’rs, in nu?shell, ore fhaf ‘fhe fafher of ‘l'he pe‘l'ilioner lo'l‘e Shri Shesh Norm/on Tlwarii while working as Assislan? Grade-II, in the office f ihe Execulive Engineer, Wafer Resources Division, Jogdalpur, died in _. o \horness on 20.10.1997. The peii‘iioner, being dependen’r member of i'he family ._\ \ 4 Pefmoner‘ Rajesh Kumar Tlwart S/o lam Shri Shesh Namyan Tiwari, aged 28 year's, occupation Shiksha Karmi Class III, Government Primary Schooi, Addawal, Vikas Khand, Jagdalpur, Dis'l‘f. Bas’rar (C;G.) Varsus Raspondenfs 1. Smfe of Chha’r’risgarh, 'rhr'ough Chief Secre’rar‘y, General Adminisfr‘m'ion Deparmxem', D.K.5. Bhawan, Raipur' (C6) 2. Secrefur‘y, Tribal Weifqr‘e Deparfmenf, Chhaf'risgar'h Government D.K.5. Bhawan, . Rdpur (C.6.) 3. Collec’ror, Dis’rric? Basfar af Jagdalpur {6.6.} 4‘ Assisfanf Commissioner, Triba! Development Jagdalpu‘r, Dlsll'. Easter (66.) 5. Chief Exeeglive Officer, Janpad Panchayal, Jagclalpur, Dislt Basfar. of Shri Shesh Namyan Tiwari, made an applicm‘ion on 6.11.1997 for granf of compassiona‘i'e appoim‘men‘r. The pefifioner‘ was appoin‘red on +he pas? of Assisfcnf Teacher by order dcrred 21.4.1998 (Annexur-e PM), passed by fhe Depufy Coilecfor‘, Bosfar, disfricf Jagdalpur. The order of appoinfmenf of fhe pe‘n‘i‘rioner on The posf of Assisfam‘ Teacher was immediafely cancelled on 23.5.1998 (Annexur‘e P/5) and fhe pefifioner was appoinfed fher-eaffer- on fhe posf of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. 3. Being aggrieved fhe pe‘ri‘rioner' has fiied fhis wri‘r pe+ifion seeking for the above s‘mi'ed relief. 4. Shri Subhash Yadav, learned counsel appearing for The pefi’rioner submifs lha‘r .once \‘he pefi'lioner has been appointed on a parficular posi‘ on compassionafe basis/ The same cannof be wi’rhdrawn wifhoul affording an opporfuniiy of hearing. Per contra, 5hrl Vashwan‘i Singh Thakur, learned Depu’ry Advocale General (5l wilh Shri Arvind Dubey. learned Panel Lawyer submils i'hai' ihe order, appoinfing ‘ihe peliiioner on i‘he p06? of Assisfanf Teacher, was wi‘lhoui' jurisdiciion as Rule 6 of ’rhe Madhya Pradesh Panchayaf Shiksha Karmi (Recruifmeni- & Condifion of Service) Rules, 1997 provides for compassiona‘ie appoin‘l‘meni only on l'he posf of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. By circular daled 9.12.1998 (Annexure R/2), issued by The Educafion Depar‘rmenf, if was made clear 1'0 all The Collecl‘ors Thai the compassional’e appoini‘men'l' canno‘l be made on any o‘lher post excepl on fhe pos‘l of Shiksha Karmi Grade—III. He furlher submiis lhaf The order daled 21.4.1998 is nof an appoinfmenl order bu‘r a proposal for appoinfmen‘l‘ on fhe posl of Assisi‘anf Teacher which was iai'er on not approved by The subsequenl' order dafed 23.5.1998. 6. According lo 5hri Thakur, fhe pefifioner was wrongly granled appoinfmen‘r order,_?hough if was a simple recommendafion for appoinl‘men‘l‘. There was a complei‘e ban on appoinfmen‘r on The pas? of Assisfcfnl' Teacher and Lecfurers vide circular dafed 20’“ January 1998 (Annexure R/l, filed with the additional return dt. 25.11.2008), during the period The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher. He submits that even the recommendation for appointment was not proper as there was a complete loan on appointment. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused '\. the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is clear that the \ appoim‘men‘r of fhe pefifioner was nof ’rhrough any proper selection process or in accordance wifh fhe consfi‘l‘u‘rional scheme of employment'I? has been held fha‘r the appoinfmen‘r on compassionafe basis is nof a proper appoinfmenf bLn‘ i? is a back door enfry. The law on compassiona‘re appointmen’r is we“ se‘r‘Hed. 8, i? is well sei'l'led principle of law fha‘i' any circular or direcfion providing for appoim‘meni‘ of a person wii’hou? seleci’ion process is viola’rive of Ariicles 14 and 16 of The Consfii‘ufion of India. 9. The principle of law on The compassionate oppoinfmenf is well se'Hled. The compassiona‘ie appoinimenf is granfed only in fhe even'i, if an employee dies in harness and on accoun‘l of sudden dea‘rh, 'ihe dependenf family has become penurious on sudden demise of fhe bread earner of i'he family. The compassionafe appointmenf ifself is a backdoor enfry. I? is a deparfure from The general rule of employment as provided under fhe provisions of Ar’ticle 14 and 16 of fhe Consiifu‘rion of India. The appoinfmeni‘ on compassionate basis is no? in accordance wifh fhe consfifufional scheme‘of employmenf bu? in order i‘o subvserve The above sTaTed purpose. (See 53m? af J & K and orders vs. 5q/aa’ Ahmed 1w?) 10. IT is well seTTled ThaT The appoinTmenT on compassionaTe ground is noT a meThod of recruiTmenT, bu‘T, 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 appoinTmenT is To enable penurious family To Tide over The sudden financial crisis and is noT To provide employment In The presenT case, The peTiTioner is sTill working on The posT of Shiksha Karmi Grade—III. 11. In View of The foregoing There is no meriT in This case. The peTiTion is accordingly dismissedf ‘ Sd/— Saash K.‘ Agnihouii ‘ Judge Thakur (2006) 5 SCC 766