Petitioner ResDondents HiGK^URT OF CHHATTlSGARH: Bij-ASPUR <-S). __. Writ Petitioh No. 3854 of 2008 Tukesh KumarSahu, S/o.Late Shri Totaram Sahu, Aged about 27 years, Village Has'da, Post : Arkar, Tehsil: Guryr, DistrictDurg. Versus 1) State of Chhaffisgarh thrc jgh the Secretary, Dspartment of E<jucation, tVlantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) The Director, Directorate of Public Education, Raipur (CG). .) The District Education Officer, Durg (CG). | QAfrit Petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of India.) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri B.P. Rao, counselfQr the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer forthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on fhis 21st day of Juiy,2008) The case ofthe petitioneristhatthefathei'ofthe petitionernamely Totaram Sahu working as a School Teacher in Govarnment Middle School, Mangchuwa; Dist. Durg, died on 1-12-1982 in harness. According to iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was minor at that ooint of time. The Detlfioner dttalned the maiority in the year 1998 and accordingly made an appiication for appointment on compassionate basis. The petitioner has aiso made one more application as required by ths offlcer. The authorjties by order dated 14- 2-2002 (Annexure P(4) dismissed the appticatiori on the ground that the petitloner could not apply within a period of thrse years as per circuiar dated 1-5-2000. Acco.rdingiy, theaDpiication was rejected. -'2- 2) IVir. B.P.Rao.tearnedcounseiappearingforthepetitionersubmits that the reiection ofthe aDDlication ofthe peCtidner i&not in accordance with iaw. The petitioner has made an appiication immediately for compassionate appointment on attaining the-ageof majority. As per Higher Secondary Schooi Certfficate, the date of birth of the petitioner is 27.6-1980. 3) Be that as it may, itisweiisettledthatcompassionategroundis not a method of recruitment, but is a faciiity to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the famiiy in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. in other words, the object of compassionate appQintment is to enabie penurious famiiy to tide ever the suciden financial crisis and is not to provide empioyment. It is also we!l settied that mere death crf the ernployee dQe& hot entitle his family to ciaim compassionate'appointment if ths famiiy members couid sustain themsetves financiailyfrom otherSouroe?;of income. 4) In the matter of Haryana Stafe Electricity Board and another Vs. HakimSingh the Supreme Court heid;that"the whoie object of any compassionate appointment scheme is togive succor to the famiiy to tide over the sudden financial crisis betallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of itssoie earning member." 5) in the matter of State Qf J&K and Qthers Vs. Sajad Ahmed Hir^, the Supreme Court after^having considered all the aspects of compassionate appointment, in para 11 obsen/ed as under. "11,... it is that such an appointment (S an exception to the genera! rute. Normally, an empioymsnt in the Goyernment or-other public ssctors shouid be open to alte!igib!e candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in eonsonance with Article ' 2007 AIR.SCW 6060 '(2006) 5 SCC 766 3 t||iRa|U 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of comDetitive merits, an aDDointment should be made to pubiic ofRce. This genera! rute shouici not be departed from except where compeiling circumsiances dsmand, such as death of sole breadwinner arid iikelihQod of ihe famiiy 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 normai ruie of appomtment and toshowfavourtoone at thecost of the interests" of several others jgnoring the mandate of Article 14'oftheConstitution." 6) Applyingweil settled principte of law to the facts of the case, when father of the Detittoner died on 1-12-1SS2 and the dependent famiiy members of the deceased smployee had survived for a tong period since 1982 till date.at th'is time, granting appointment on compassionate basis woyld defeat fhe very purpose- ot compassiQnateappointrnenf^^There is noflnerit in this<age. -^ 7) In view ofthe fpregoing, this petttion-is dismissed summarily;. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge