2 ^isw^ <- , .r. ido' - t'\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. N0, C&) 28o /2007 PETITIONER ^ Manoj Kumar Dudt, aged about 28 years, S/o. Late Shri Vijay Kumar Dudt, R/o. Village Churra, Tehsil Gariabandh, District Raipur (C.G.) \^9/ .U"Y^"^ ^' ^ '^>'" WRIT PETITION . -^4.. State of Chhattisgarh, y Through Secretary, Department of Forest D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) . Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) District Forest Officer, Raipur (East) Raipur (C.G.) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION. CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE HIG*LCCttiRT C CHHATTISBARH AT BILASPUR SINGUE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. A .i>'./ PetiUoner Resoondents WRIT PETITION (S.l N0.280 OF 2007 Manoj Kumar O vftrsus State ofChhatttsgarti and others Present : Mr. Sunil Olwani, counsel for thepetiUoner. Mrs. Anju Ahuja. Deputy Govemment Advocate for ttie State/respondents. ORDER (F'assed on 19?tl Day of Januaiy, 2007) The father of ths peUtioner, namety, Shri Wjay jmar Dbdt died while wortdng as Ranger in the Department ofForest, atRalpur, in hamess on 29-3-1987. / 2; fiStei the death of <he fattisrofthe petUoner, ehter toother of fte petiUoner, namely, Shri Manish Kumar DbA, moved an applicaUon for compasstonate appointment, but he died (MkM' to a decision on his application. 3. Thereafter, on the appticaUon of th» pstlttoner for compassionatoappointment, by a letter datad 7-8-1968 (Annecure P- 2), the case of the petttioner was recommended for ghring compassionate appointment. Later on, by another letter dated 25-5- 1999 (Annexure P-3), the petftioner was informed that vaeant poats are not availabte in Raipur Cirote, and his case would be consktered on availabilify of vaeant post. Finally, by letters dated 22-3-2006 and 24-4- 2CX36 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner was informed that in the light of the memorandum of the State Govemment dated 2-2-2006, the petttioner is not entitled to get compassionate appoinbnent. Thus, this peBtion. 4. I have heard leamed counsel appearii^ for the parties and perused the petition and the records 5. It is well settled ttiat the appointmwrt on eompassionato ground is not a method of recruitraent, but, is a facitity to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the faraily in disfress for reltevtag the dependent famtly members of the deceased emplc^ee from destituBon. In oBier words, the object of compassionateappoinbnent Is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial erisis and is nol to provide employment. It is also wetl setUed thsrt mere deatti of ttie employee does not entiBe his family to ctaim eem(»sstonate appointment if the family members could sustain thOTiselves financialty from other sourees of income. 6. The Supreme Court, in State ofJ&K antfothera vs. Sajad Ahmed Miis, after having considered all the as(»cts of compassionate appointment, observedas under:- "11. .......... it is that such an appointment (s an exception to the general rule, istormalty, an employment in the Government or othw pubtic secloreshould ba open to trfl etigible who can come forward to apply and competewitti each other. It is in consonance with Arttete 14 of ttie ConstituBon. On the basis of coropelBve merits, an appointment should be ma<te to puMic ofltee. This general rute should nst be departed from except where compelNng clreaimstances demand, such as, death ofthe sele breadimmner and tikelihood of the family sufferii^ because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the famity survived and substantial period is over, there is no nece»Hyto say "goodbye" to the normal rute of appointtnent and to show favour to ons at the eost of the interests of several othereignoringthe mandateof Article 14 ofth®Constitution." 7. In Vhe present case, the tether of the p^doner died in Mareh, 1987. Thereafter.thefamnysustaBwdilselfflnancialtyfrom other sources of income and after a period of about 19 yeais, appointment on compassionate basls woutel defeat ttie puipose of appointmerrt as itwould not be rehaMtitaUon ofthefsunity in distress but granting backdoor entry in the employment. 8. There is no merit in tiils prtltion. Ttae peBton is accontingly dismissed. No order as to costs._-——— sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (2006)5 SCC 766 Gopal