HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, B1LASPUR W‘P.(S) NO.7042/201 1 PETITIONER Omendra Shah Kunjam, S/o late Shri Vikram Shah Kunjam, aged about 21 years, R/o Village Kotagaon (Thakur Para), Post Mahamaya, P.Sl Mahamaya, Tahsil Doundl, District Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, DK.S‘ Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 3 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Doundi, District Durg (C.G.~) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF lNDlA Appearance : Mr. Ajay Barik, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (28.11.2011) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard on admission. Father of the petitioner namely Vikram Shah Kunjam died in harness on 05.08.1992. After a very long time, the petitioner made application for compassionate appointment, which has been rejected by the concerned authority and a communication W.P.(S) NO.7042/201 1 dated 06.02.2010 (Annexure P/1) has been issued to the petitioner. The contents of the communication would show that the petitioner filed appHcation for compassionate appointment after 17 years from the date of death of his father. The concerned authority has referred to the provisions reiating to the time perigd, in which, such application for compassionate appointment ought to have been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was minor on the date of death of his father, therefore, the application was not made in time. ln Punjab National Bank and others —-Vs- Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004} 7 SCC 265, the Apex Court held that the appointment on the compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement of making appointments on open‘ invitation of application on merits Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crises. The Apex Court further held in LG. (Karmilg) and others —Vs- Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162, that the public employment is considered to be a wealth. it in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by the Apex Court, the same must be strictly complied with. The Apex Court said that the appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the w.P.(S) No.7o42/2o11 purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion. in State of J & K and others — Vs-Saiad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766, the Apex Court held that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the genera! ruie. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete each other. lt is in oonsonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should .not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that insipte of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say “goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests Of several others ignoring the mandate e of Article 14 of the Constitution. ln the present case, admittedly, the application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner after a period of 17 years from the date of death of his father. I am of the View that when the family survived for such a long period, then, there was no necessity df: giving appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds on the above principles. For the foregoing reasons, l do not find any substance in the writ petition. The same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge