HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Singte Bench: Hon'ble Shri SaSsh K. Agnihotrf, J. Writ Petition (S) No. 1956 of 2008 Pstitioner Versus Respondente 1. 2. 3. Kaushal Kumar Bhoi, S/o. Late Shri Purushottam Bhoi, Aged about 20 years, R/o. Viltage Toresingha, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary Education Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ralpur (C.G.) The District Education Officer. District Mahasamund (C.G.) The Block Education Officer, Saraipali, Djstrict Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF tNDIA Shri Ambuj Agarwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 2nd day of April, 2008) 1. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the father of the petitioner namejy Shri Purushottam Bhoi, was working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Jagalbeda, Saraipali, District - Mahasamund, when he died on 18.2.2(K)0 inharness. 2. At that point of time the petitioner was minor. After death of the father of the petitioner, an application for compassionate appointment was made in the month of May, 2000 to ttie Block Education Officer, Saraipali but according to tearned counsel appearing for the pelitioner, the petitioner was minor at that point of time. The appSication was not forwarded to the 'y higher authority. After attaining the age of majority, application of the petjtjoner for grant of compassjonate appointment was forwarded by the Block Education Officer, Saraipali to the Dlstrict Education Officer, Mahasamund on 2.3.2007 (Annexure P/3) for consideration of his case for grant of compassionate appointment. According to Shri Ambuj Agarwal, learned counsei. tie pstitioner attainsd age of m^jortty on 4.1 1.2006. 3. The District Education Officer, Mahasamund vide impugned order dated 14.9.2007 (Annexure P/1) rejected the appSication of the petitioner for compassionate appomtment on the ground that as per the instruction contained in clause 3 (12) of the circutar dated ltfh June, 2003 and as per clauss 3(12) S ofths amended RUJQ 2 ofthe circular dated 23rd Ju!y, 2003, issued by the General Adminjstration Department, there is no provjsion for provjdjng compasslonate appointment to the petitioner after a period of three years of the cteath of the employee (father of the petitioner). 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the petStioner submits that the petitioner is entitSed to appointment on compassionate basss when he attatned the majority. 5. The petitioner has fiSed this petition with unexplained and inordinate delay, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment. The father of the petitioner died on 18.2.2000 and the mother of the petitioner ctid not make an applicatjon for compassjonate appointmsnt at that time. 6. St is weSI settled that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but, is a facility to provide for jmmediate rehabjiitation of the famdy in distress for relievjng the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. tn other v/ords, the object of compassionate appointment is to enabte penurious famjly to tide over the sudden fsnanciaS crisis and is not to provide employment It is also welS settled that mere death of the employee does not entitje his famity to daim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themselves financially from other sources of income. 7. In Haryana State Eiecfricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh1 the Supreme Court held that "the whole object of any compassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befalten the dependents on account ofthe untimely demise of its sole earning member." 8. The Supreme Court in the case of State of J & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmd Mir2, in para 1 1 has held as under :- "11............it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rute. Normaily, an employment in the Govemment or ottier pubiic sectors should be open to all eligibte candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. tt is in consonance with Articte 14 of the Constitution, On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rute should not be departed from except where compeBing circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and Hkelihood of the famjly suffering because of the setback. Once jt is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survwed and substantiat period is over, there js no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normaS rute of appojntment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Artcte 14 of the Constitution." 9. Jn view of the above settled prindptes of law, there is no merit in this petition. The petition is accordingty dismlssed summarily. No order asto Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Thakur 1{(1997)8SCC85} ' {(2006)5S.C.C.766}