^ yf-- Pefitioner Respondents HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTjSGARH:BiLASPUR Writ Petitlon iS'l No. 3070 of 2005 Vinod Kumar Mahato, S/o. Snri T.P. Mahato, Peon, Baiak Ashram. Baijnathpur, Biock Bhaiyathan, Dist. Sarguja, !V3P. Versus 1) State ofM.P, through Secretary, Department of Tribai Weifare, Bhopai, MP. 2) Asst. Commlssioner, Department of Tribal Wejfare, Ambikapur, Dist. Sarguja, IVIP. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present: Shri A.K. Prasad, counsei for the petitioner. Smt, Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State< ORAL (Passed on 10th May, 2007) Learned. counse! appearing for thepetitioner submits.that the father ofthe petitioner, nameiy T.P< Mahato while working as Assistant Teacher- in Balak Ashram, Baljnathpur, Biock Baiyathan, Dist Surguja, diedon 8-8-1993 in harness. 2. The petitioner, being one of the dependents -iegai helrs of the deceased, was granted" compassionate appointment to the post of peon vide AnnexureA/2, Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner in the petitlon that the petitioner. was entitled to be granted appolntment as L.D.C. The petitioner made a representation dated 17- 9-1998 ( Annexure A/3) to the respondents/authorities to consider his case to the post of L.D.C« but ihe respondents authorities have not considered his case. Belng aggrieved, the petitioner has fiied-this petitlon. '^^ -../^ 3. It is weii settled that compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but is a faciiity to provide for immedlate rehabiiitation of the famiiy in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased empioyee from destitution. !n other words, the object of compasslonate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financlai crisis and is not to provide empioyment. it is aiso wei! that mere death of the empioyee does not entitje hls famlly to ciairn compassionate appointment if the family members could sustaln themseives financially from other sources of income. 4. In Haryana State Electricity B.oard and another Vs. Hakim Singh1, the Supreme Court held that "the whoie object of any compassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the famlly to tide over the sudden flnanciai crisls befeilen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its soie eaming mernber." 4. The Supreme Court in State of J.&K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed MJr2, after havlng considered ail the aspects of compassionate appointment, inparall obsen^edas under: "11....... !t Is that such an appointment is an exception to the generai rule. Normaily, an empioyment in the Gbvernment or other public sectors shouSd be open to aiS eliglbie candidates who can come forward to app!y and compete with each otner. !t Is in consonance with Artlcie 14 of the Constitution. On the basls of competitive merits, on appolntment shouid be made to public office. This generai rule shouid not be departed from except where compeliing circumstances demand, such as, death of the 1(19S7)8SCC85 2 (2006) 5 SCC 766 -3~ sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once It is proved that in spite of the death of the breadvi/inner, the family sun/ived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normai ruie of appointment and to shov^ favour to one at the cost of the interests of severai others ignoring the mandate of Artlcle 14oftheConstitution," -,.,^- 5. !n view of the above settied principies of !aw, there is no merit In tnls petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed summariiy. No order astocosts. Sd7- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Raju