AF^ :L\^5 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S1 NQ. 7047 OF 2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 2. 3. Kaushal Kumar Sahu, aged 40 years, S/o Shri Jauhari Ram Sahu, Shiksha Karmi Grade - III, Govt. Primary Schooi, Karmari, Block Chhurriya, District Rajnandgaon. », Versus State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur(CG). District Education Offlcer, Rajnandgaon Btock Education Cfficer, Chhuriya, District" Rajnahdgaon (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble ShriSatishK. Agnihotri,J. Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao. Govt. Advocate and Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Pahel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on this 17th day of February, 2009) The petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-ttl by order dated 1-7-2002 (Annexure-P/2) on account of death of his Tather namely, Jauhari Ram Sahu. who died on 10-6-2000, in hamess.while woridnfl as Head IVtaster. Thereafter. the petitioner moved an application dated 3-4-2008 (Annexure-P/5) before the respondent authorities and requested to grant regylar appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and the consequential benefits thereof. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the.^aid application is pendingconsideration. }• 2) I have heard teamed counset appearing for the parties, perused th& pleadings and the documents appended thereto. From the Gircular dated 1-5-20)0 issued bythe Generat Administration Department, Govemment of Madhya Pradesh, it reveals that eompassionate appoinbnent can be granted on the post of Shiteha Karmi. The relevant portion of the said circular reads as under: 2/' "w ISFT w a^qr R^Rd ^t uir m&*R- 31^*41 R^Rd 3iij<;*/3nift®rgror wfttT ifrnidT ^ arerc m ^fldV vRift ^ PlMd*) ici' •ygi'u* ^s-3 0?T>'r ^nft iSrRlw). RKiwff ^ qCT ^ TC w? tr ^tuH *i«j»'nr" 3) Be ttiat as it may, it is well setttsd principte of law that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but is a facility to provicle for immediate rehabilitaUon of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitufion. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious familyto tide over the sudden finaneial crisis and is not to provide employment. It is also well setUed that mere death of the employee does notentitle his famity to ctaim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themselves financially from other sourees of income. 4) In the matter of Haryana State Electricity Board and another vs. Hakim Singh1 the Hon'ble 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 dependants on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member." 5) The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodin, after having heard various cases on compassionate appointmsnt, observed as under: "11. In Smt. Siishma Gosanand Ors. v.Union^ India and Ors. {1989 {4} SCC 468} it was obsen/ed that in all claims of appointment on compassiQnategrounds.thereshouldnotbeany delay in appointmerit. The purposeof providing appolntments on compassionate ground Is to mitigatethe haRlshipdueto deathofthebread- .-, eamer inUiefamily.SuGh.appointmehtsshould, '. '" therefore, be provided immediately to redeem ?. the family in disfress. The fact thafthe Wardwas a mlnor at the a'me of deathof his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically ptherwise, to state that as and when such mtnor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or ' limit. The above view wasrelteratedin PAooAvaff (Smt) v. Unionaflnda &0rs. {1991 Supp (2) ' 2007 AIRSCW 6060 2AIR2003SCW4330 prii -3 SCC 689/and Unfon oflndia & Ors. v. Bhagwan Siryh ft9QS (6) SCC 470}. fn Director of Eckicaffwi (Seconc^ry) & Anr. v. Pi/shpend^ Kumar & Ors. ft998 (5) SCC 192}, st was observed that |n matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideratlon and havlng regard to the fact that unless somesource oflivelihood isprovided tte family would not be able to jpake both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointroentto one of the dependante of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compasstonate employment wMlch is in the nature of an exception to ttie generat provisions does notundufyinterferewiththeright of those other persons who are elfgible for appoinbnent to seek appoiniment against ttie post Myhich wouid have been availabfe, but for the provision snabling appointment Ning made on compassionato grounds of the dependant of the deceased emptoyee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general provjsions it cannot subsUtute the provtsion to Whfch It is an exception and thereby nultify the main provision by taking away comptetely the right conforred l»y the mafn provision." 6) In Uie matter of State of J & K and others vs, Sajad Ahmed Mir3, the Hon'bte Supreme Court after havinfl considered all ttie aspects of compassionate appointment, in para 11 obsewed as under:- "11......it is that such an appoinfrnent is an exception to the generalrule. Normally, an employment In the Government or ottier public sectprs should be open to all etigible candidates who can come Torward to apf^y and compete wlth each other. It is in consonance with ArtiGle 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be_made to pubtic offlce. This generat rute should not becleirarted from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as deattiofthe sotebreadwinner .-, and liketihood of the famity suffering beeauss of thesetback. Orice it is proved that in spite of the i', deathof thebreadwnner, thefamlty sumvedand substential period is over.theroisno necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appofntment and to show favour to one at the cost of the intereste of several others ignoring ths mandate of Article 14 ofthe Constitution." i-n (2006)58cc766 Gowri 7) Applying the well settled princifries of lawto the factsofthe case on hand wherein after ttie death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was granted compassionate appoinftnent on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-111 and he has no righttoclaim that on a particutar post he should be given compassionate appointment. Thus, the petitioner does not dsserve any relief. The petition is being devoid of merit and sans any substance. 8) In view of the foregoing, the petition is liaye to be dismissed and it is herebydismissed. No orderastocosts. H ! 1 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 3» ~" ' .i