<?4 A^ HIGHCOURTOF JUDICATURE CHHATnSGARH: BIUJSPUR ! Beach: Hpa'ble SIa-i Satish K. &gfdb.otsl,J. Writ PetiHoB Ro. 15Q of2004 Pctitioncrs 1. 2. Versus Rcspondcnts 1, 3. Suresh Kumar Yadav, Son of Shn D. N. Yadav, Aged 26 yeais, resident ofKonta. Aviieesh Kumar Dadoriya, aged about 23 years, son of Shri R. L. Dadonya, Resident of Gram. Farasgaoii, Tahsil Kondagaon, Distt, Bastar. State of Chfiattisgarh, Throi^h fhe Secretaiy, Ministiy of Educatiou, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The CoUector, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) Thc Conector, Jagdalpur, Distfc Bastar (C.G.) The Additional/Depuly Commissigner, Tribal Development, Distt. Dantewala. The Chief Executivc OfiBccr, Jaapad. Paachayat, Koata. Distt. Dautewada. Shri Krishna Rao, Son of Shri Dur^an KMtayaa, R/o Distt. Jagdalpur. WRITPETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THB consTiTumoK OF IBDIA Shri Kshitiz Shaniia, Advocate for fhe petifiouers. "• Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the respoDdfints. , ORALOSDER (Passed on this 1st day ofAngust, 2008) 1. With ftieconsentofappearmgparties the matter is heard finaUy. 2. Thg petitioiiers were appointed on coiapassionate basis on tlie post of Shiksha Karmi GBade-III in flie pay scafe of Rs. 800-30-1200/- iiiJi ^tsdkj ai-nr*T??ail3g^* •iSa?.Si,-USlsKsSasi!!s ^ t'l' vide orderdated 28.8.1998 (Aanexure P/1) on account ofdeathpf their father ia hacaess. The father of the petitipner No.l was uutialty appointed on the post ofClerk aad the fafher of petitioaer No.2 was working oa the post of Upper Divisioa_ Teacher. The rcspondent No.6, who accoidmg to leamed counsel for the petitioiier was suttBarfy situated, was apppiated oa the post of Lab Assistaat vide OKler dated 6.10.1998 (Annexuie P/4) m the pay scale ofRs. 2750-70-3800-75-4400./-. 3. Learaed counsel fiirther subinits that it is a case ofdiscrimination, thus fhje respondents authorities be directed to appomt fhe petitioneES on the aame postcarrymg thfi same salaiy ie. the post ofLab Assistant. 4. Leamed counsel appeaiing for fh.e petitioners submits that the appomtmeut ofthe petitioners aloiig with several others who were appoiated on compassionate basis pn various posts namely Shiksha Karmi GFade-III, Clerk, Peon, Chamman and teb Assistaut was discriminatory, as even in case. of compassionate appointment also fhe petitioner has aright to be considered for the post applied for or ou a lugher post, wNch were gEanted to ottier suailarty situated candKlate i.e. fhe respondent No.6. 5. The law ,on appoiatment, on compassioxiate basis, is clear fhat appointment on compassionate baste ^ not a regular mode of recruitmenfc It is a bacfe door eutiy. The petitioaers couJd have e]airaed right to appointment on the postpfLab Assistaat ifthey were selected through proper selection procedure, competing with simBarly situated caadidates. It is not in dispute fhat fhe petitioiicra have aot faced auy competition along with bflier similarly situated persons. The petitioners have been appoiuted on :lii^;3;££^^S .^.«8" ^ the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on eompassionate basis, on account ofdeafh ofthe deceased einployees ia hamcss. 6. It is furfher weU settled that fhe appoiutment ou coinpassioD.ate ground is not a mefhod of recruitment but, is a faciUly to pDSvide for immediate retiabiiitation of fhe fauuty ia distress for reUeviag the dependent family niem.bera pf the deceased eiaployee fom destitution. In other words, fhe object of coinpassionate appointment is to eDable penunou.s faiaify to tide over the sudden. finaueial crisis aad is not to provide employment. It is also well setUed that mere death ofthe employce does not erLti.tle his iauufy to claim. coiapassionate appointment if fhe famity menibers could sustain them.selves financiaUy fix)m. ofher sources ofiacome. 7. In Haryaaa St^e Eleetricity Bpard aad imother Vs. Hahiia Siii^h1 thc Suprcmc Court hcld ttiat'Ithc whole objcet of any compassionate appointm.en.t scheme is to give succor to the famity to tide over the suddeu financial crisis befaUen fhe dependents on accoiintoftlie untiinelydemiseofitssoteeamu^member." 8. Thc Syprcmc Court m llic casc ofState of J & K aad othea-s Vs. Sqjad AIimd BIit8, in para 11 has hcld as undcr :- "II............it is fhat such an. appoiateaent is an exceptfoa to fhe general rule. Normathr, aa employment m fhe Govemment or ofher public sectors should be opea to aB eUgibte candidates who caa come foiward to apply aad coiupete wifh each ottier. It is in consoaaace witti Article 14 of the CGnstitatioa. On fhe basis of competitive merits, au appoiatment shouM. be made to publicoffioe. This general r-ile shouM not be departed feoia exceptwhere coinpeUuig circuiastaaces demand, sucli as, deafh of flie sole breadwinner aad Ekeliiiood offhefaituly sufFering because of ;{(1&S7)8SCC85} ' {(20QS)5S.C.C.766} !t^^^ l^^ra4....,^.i;-;:.J,;^s;;i:: '•;'•^':^S<^'--.:-S-/;'A.'W;.A^>^'^^ •isss-'svse^'s^sssss's,'?. fe! Kl 1 r s- I 1 t 1 i § n s, F-+ p' p @s ^ s, ! <<i s•a 13 sB 1 ^ t 1 1 B- & 1 i 1 !• g s s. s- 1 nri § ^ s, •g: cc 1 i e& P3 1 s, 11 ? 11 1 g s, 1t1 ? ? 1It B. p- 1 1 e. ? ^: !B- 1 1 s, i 1 &• M h^ '^ 5" 1I 1 11 g1 B- & 6o 5 s, ^ is, 1p" v c+ 1 r+. ^ 9?'5i &'t1 § 1 o- i fo wt l-.l1 s, j S't t-p)Ii 1 Q 1 £ -§ 1 ,^ B- 1 .(B 1 s, B ^ S' B- p W g B'' fB .I 1 n> p 1 ^ .p? >8 1n s' (t- l' t § r ^ s- g .1 s- & s I ^s Hi r ^ 1 s, ;? 'v»i' 1 1 1 s, pr :;§f ^ ts s t e f ? 1.1i' II ^ ^ !» g 1i s, w-o p" ? 'tt & 'Q' u3 s 1 s> 11 Is-1 l' B' g. g. o FB ft 11 ^ -h1 g & g- II pl i"+ t fy a ir Siif t iil •l A ,i;" i-fegy^ ^ ^Q ^p !:" K^A '''. 'i vh: ':]l ^. ':9 '.,,-SK..-,-;"' ' 11. 12. Thalcur particular post. Out of purely humanitariau consideratiou and having regatd to the fact fhat uuless some soiirce of Uvelittood is provided the family wouU uot be abte to make both eads meet. TIius the compassionate appoiatmfint is to niitigate the haidship caused to fhe fainily ofthe deceased on account offais unexpected death wlule in service. This petition was fUed on 14.1.2004. ftranting above reUef or directing the State/Respondeuts to appoint the petitioners as Lab 2'Vssistent or quash the appoiatment ofthe respondent No.6 as Lab Assistant, may cause prejudice to fhe respondent No.6 and as a matter of poU.cy, particularly in fhe case of coinpassionate appoiatinent, fhe State aufhorities canaot be directed t6 graat a particular post to a peraon by way ofback i door entiy. Thus, this petitibn is devoid of merit and is acconlingty dismissed. 1 Sd/'- Satish K. Agaihotri Judge ti:^ MrM^ :ii-i.^Mi