HIGH CGURT OF CHATT§SARH BILASPUR WRIT PETH'mN (S) No. 557‘0f 2069 Devendra'Kumar Chandrakar Sjo Late Vijay Kumar Chandrakar, aged about m years, R/o Pacharipara Kurud, District Dhamtari (C G ) VERSUQ E$PSNDEN¥S 4i. The State af Chhaitisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Schco! Educaticn, D.K.5. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Pubiic instructions, Pensien Bada Ranpur (C G) 3. The mstmt Educarim ffice” Dha’ntari, ‘ District Dhamtar: (C G) 4.» The Bicck Education 0f§rcer, Kuruzj, Dis%r§ct Bhamtari (C.G.) WRTT PETiTiON UNDER ARTlctE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTlON OF lNDiA‘ SB: Tian’bie Shri Satish K. Agaihotri. é. Present: shri M.K.Bhadur§, Advocate far the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastaxta, Pane! Lawyer for the State/respondents, ORAL ORDER (Passed on 24th day of March, 2909) With The consent of the garties, the matter is heard fineiiy. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of maedamue directing .the respendente to consider the case of the petitioner fer cempassionei‘e appointment. The petitioner furthei seeks to quash the impugned letter/order dated 95.02209? (Annexure P/5) issued by the respondent No. 3. The iacts, in nutsheii, are that the father at the petitiener hameiy ijay Kumar Chandrakar, whiie working as Peon in the Government Higher Seconderf seem; Darba died an 29.06.1ee7v (Annexure P/l) in hameee. At the time oi death Shri Viiay Khmer Chandrakazr, the petitioner wee minor. After attaining the age of majority in the year 2907, the petitioner made an appiication before the reepondents for grant of compassionate appointment. His application was recommended by the Coiieotor and forwarded to the respondent No. 3‘ fo'r neceesary action. Thereafter, vide order dated O5;02.206? (Annexure P/5) the appiication of the petitioner was rejected. Hence, this etition. PETiTiONER §IG AT R O ~ V p if». x Learned counsei appearing far the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 5.2.2007 (Annexure 53/5} is bad in iawand is iiabie to b‘e set aside. He further submits that at the time of death of'father ,of the petitioner, the petitioner was minor, therefore he 'couid make appiication for compassionate appointment oniy after attaining the age of majority. Thus, the petitioner shouid have been granted compassionate appointment. Per contra, Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Pane! Lawyer appearing for the te/resnn ubi at as r the ciruiar dated 92.022006 he case o the petitioner s ot coved unde y f rntn ssa men overnment h ed o gan mpassioate pointmeniy o iga as decid t rt con apt'On t the el h/dped of e deeased pyee, w d ar eirsenents th c emio ho die fte l119. in the presen case, f of t peione ied o a.197 t ather he ttir d n ..19, , th etitner itiy en nd poimet on compassnate sis. Be that it may, it is wei-setied tht compssinae apoment i is not in aordnce with constitutinai scheme o'f eoyment a is‘ hkdoo nty. Moreovr, i s noweiedtt poent ompassat grnd at d a at it Th opssnae poment to ov uco d e deen mes o a Stapodets smts th pe c . t f i n re r polic or gaig compaionte appointt as the State G . as it a aot pint cca the o . mpi nd a ac-r er e t i _wii—settha apintm on cione ou cnno be ciaime as mter of rgh. e grant of cmaiot apint is pride eor an reiief to th pendt mebr wh hd bec peuius n t eat of th e er fa. ome nro o he dh e brad arne of the miiy rsnt t he pro o ahya ade Raa 200 the e harh e nto etence Novmbr 0 h e vra cs pennin be he ee 200 Tere wer seel ase g efor t autrie f the ate of Chaisgar he Sate overent, by Circul dated ..006 ecide tht .th piitin o depnen peo f ho emes, wh d aft 0.11. saii nside. ai ie am ee ir ” W ) No f33/08 (Nagndra Sm Parir v St CG hotis o St htth. T t Gnm ar 02022 dd a e apcaos f the edt rsns o tse piOye o die er 197 h be coerd The sd ssu ce up bfor ths-Cout in HS 20 e gh ha tae of 8: Gthers)1 and the same was upheid 1 2008 (2) CGL 290697 Thus e pio has rgh be deie apntn io ba Puua o t vrsions f Md Prsh eorgniztion Act 6 Stat/of Chattisg cam i xas wef 1“ of J 189 The Hon’bie SUmeme Cowt in State of 1&K &ndvothers Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir2, in‘para 11 regarding .deiay in seeking compassionatg agapaintment hem as under: "OnCe it i5 proved that inspite of the death of the breadwmner, the fam§iy suwived and substantiai peried , is over, there is no neceseity to say “good—bye” to the normal rule of appemtment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interest of severe! othere ignoring the mandate of Article 14 0f the Cormtitution.” The ratio laid down by ‘the Supreme Court in Staie of J.&’K and others (supra) has been reiterated in Commissioner of Puhii'c instruciionsand others vs.’ KR. Vishwanatm t is thus ciear from the decisions cited above that the petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment by virtue of a right of inheritance. Even otherwise, appiication for appointment on eompassionate basis can not’be c'onsiciereci dehors the policy of the government. \ Applying the wen-settled principles of iaw to the facts of,the case and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition deserves to be r and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs 2 (2006) 5 SCC 765 3 worm 7 son ms i ;