CWP No.8086 of 2009 :1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 26.05.2009 Harpreet Singh Saini ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Notice of motion. At this stage, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage. The mother of the petitioner was serving as a JBT Teacher in the Government Primary School, Himmatpur Block Dasuya-1. She died in harness on 13.09.1997. Admittedly, the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his mother. The petitioner's father on 03.10.1997 moved an application to the District Education Officer (Primary), Hoshiarpur, to keep one post reserved for the petitioner, till completion of his studies, for compassionate appointment. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for the first time in the year 2005 seeking compassionate appointment. The case of the CWP No.8086 of 2009 :2: petitioner was forwarded to the District Education Officer, Hoshiarpur. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Hoshiarpur, also forwarded the case of the petitioner to the District Education Officer (Secondary Education), Hoshiarpur. The Director, Education Department (Secondary Education), Punjab, Chandigarh, sought information from the District Education Officer (Secondary Education), Hoshiarpur, as to when the petitioner for the first time applied for appointment. It is specifically mentioned that the date of birth of the petitioner was 12.02.1982 and he became major in the year 2000. The Block Education and Panchayat Officer, Dasuya, informed the District Education Officer that the petitioner did not apply on attaining the age of 18 years in the year 2000. From the further correspondence from the office of the District Education Officer, it is evident that the petitioner passed MA in Punjabi from the Punjab University in the year 2004 as also B.Ed. in the year 2005 and thereafter applied for the job on compassionate grounds. Receiving no response, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 10.01.2009, Annexure P-10. In response to the aforesaid legal notice, the petitioner has been informed vide the impugned communication dated 15.04.2009, Annexure P-11, that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the Director vide his order 22.01.2009. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid communication. It is, however, noticed that the order passed by the Director is not under challenge. Apart from that, admittedly, at the time of death of the mother of the petitioner, he was 15 years of age and was undergoing studies. He applied for the compassionate appointment for the CWP No.8086 of 2009 :3: first time in the year 2005 i.e after 8 years of the death of his mother. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in the year 1997, the petitioner moved an application for reserving one post for compassionate appointment. It is also admitted position that the petitioner attained majority in the year 2000. It is settled law that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment/appointment. The object and purpose of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased to overcome the immediate financial crisis/needs. The petitioner being minor at the relevant time could not be appointed. He even after attaining majority, did not make any attempt to seek compassionate appointment. It was only when he completed studies in the year 2005, he made an application for seeking compassionate appointment. Even otherwise, admittedly, the petitioner's father is alive. Whether the father of the petitioner is having any source is also not disclosed. It is merely stated that the mother and father of the petitioner had strained relations. No material has been placed on record by the petitioner to establish strained relations between his father and mother. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that copy of the order has not been supplied to the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner ever applied for the copy and it has not been supplied to him. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 26.05.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO