ag this petition, the petitiener seeks appointment on campassionate .pasis. 2) The facts, in nutshell, are that ahe brother of tha petitioner, Shri Suresh Kumar Agrawal. workéng as Upper Division Cierk in Triba! Weifare Department. Biock Bagicha, died on 4—74 992 in harness. The petitioner made an applieaiion on 26-7-1992 for grant of compassionate appointment on account of death of his elder brother Suresh Kumar Agrawai in harneee and thereafter mother of the petitioner aiso made an appiication to the authorities for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner being younger brother of iate Shri Sureeh Kumar Agrawai. The Collector and the Aseietant Commissioner, Tribal Weifare, aim-z goum- oF cHHAmsGARH: saLAaPun Writ Petmon (3) No. 3126 0f 2005 aim W 31W 31W w. W K . 3mm m v m M m 3mm, 1H. ~ W5, W W, W (1m) Versus mm 1 Hy. w Em — W, slum WI, ma (w) (W 2 rm. W m - Em mm: ma (3m) m, 31m m WW m - mg? (1m) 4 m m wrfa W mm m - m (1m) 53: Hon’me Mr. smash K. Agnmom, J. Present: Shri PK, Patéi, counsel for the petiticmer, ‘ Shri Agay Dwivedi, Panemawyaforthe State. ORAL oaoER (Passed 0n 23th January, 2008) Department, Raigarh, by orders dated 28-1 0—1999 (Annexure Al1) and 20—8-1999 '(Annexure A/2) rejected the applications filed by the petitioner es weii as by his mother on the, ground that as per policy of the Government, there is no provision to grant compassionate appointment to brother. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has tiled this petition. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Tribunai in _ .7 ' the case of Anii Kumar Garg Vs. State of M.P. & others in O.A.No. 15511995 (1997 M.P.l.S.R. 602) directed the State Government to grant compassionate appointment to Anil Kumar Garg, who was brother of the deceased employee. 4) On perusal of the order in the case of Anil Kumar Garg (supra), it _ appears that the policy of the Government on compassionate appointment has not been noticed and the application was aitowed on several other considerations. 5) l haverheard learned counsel for the parties, perused pleadings, documents and policy of the‘Government appended thereto. On perusal of the policy of the Government, it appears that the widow and children atone are entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate basis on-accomt of death of father or mother. As per the poliy of the Government, brother is not entitledto compassionate appointment. 6) e Be that as it may, it is well settled that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabiiitation of the famiiyin distress for reliving the dependent family members of the deceased employee fro‘m .destitution. ln other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious famiiy totide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide empioyment. lt is also well settled that mere death of the employee does not entitle his family to‘ciaim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themselves nnancially from other sources of income. it N3) /\u ' I ‘1 7) In Haryana state E!ectricity aoard and another Vs. Hakim Slngli { (1997) 8 SCC 85 } the Supreme Court held that ”thé whole object of any compassionate appointment scheme is to give sucoor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befailen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of it soie earning member.” 8) The Supreme Court in the case of State of J & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir {(2006) 5 SCC 766}, in para 11 has held as under: “11 .it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normaiiy, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to alt eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. lt is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This generai 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 ‘ in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the famiiy survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say “goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to once at the cost of the interest of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 1.4 of the Constitution" \ /i i 9) Applying well settled principle of iaw to the facts of the case, it is evident that immediate need to provide reiief and succor to the family is also over and the compassionate appointment, which is a back door entry, cannot be granted to a person contrary to the Government’s policy. Accordingly, it is not warranted to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondents/authorities. 10) in view of‘foregoing, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costsr’i i“ L ‘t . Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri l,‘ Judge l l l Raju K