C.W.P. No.21446 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.21446 of 2008 Date of Decision:22.12.2008 Narinder Singh ............... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ............Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shireesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? K.KANNAN J. **** Petitioner appointed on compassionate considerations as Assistant Sub-Inspector, against the existing vacancy on 05.09.2003 after the death of his father, who died in harness, clamours for a higher post as either Inspector or Sub-Inspector by means of this writ petition. 2. The basis of the claim for the petitioner, as set forth in the petition is that as per the State Policy providing ex gratia appointment, he was entitled to be considered to the appointment of Inspector of Police, which post was one step lower to the post which was held by the father of the petitioner at the time of his death. The recommendation of the second respondent (DGP, Haryana) that the petitioner could be considered as eligible for the appointment as Inspector came as a shot in the arm for the C.W.P. No.21446 of 2008 -2- petitioner to contend for consideration for a higher post. The additional justification was that there could not have been a direct appointment to the post of ASI and as per the Punjab Police Rules as amended in the year 2001, the post could be filled up only by promotion. The petitioner has made a representation through his mother to the respondents for consideration to the higher post and finding that they have evoked no response, he has filed the above writ petition. 3. It has been found times without number and laid down authoritatively that the appointment on compassionate grounds is not in itself a method of recruitment but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress, for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution vide Dhalla Ram Vs. Union of India (1997) 11 SCC 201. In the very nature of things, compassionate appointment is a deflection from the constitutional principles enshrined in Article 14 and 16 and no appointee can demand as a right consideration for any particular post, any more than how the Scheme providing for compassionate appointment admits of. Admittedly, the only post that was available at the time was the post of Assistant Sub Inspector to which the petitioner has been considered and appointed in the year 2003. The petitioner faces no threat to his appointment at the hands of the respondents and he will not be justified in creating a bogey of vulnerability for such appointment to the post as ASI on the ground that it is only a promotion post and could not be made by direct recruitment, especially when the respondents have not yielded to his representation for consideration for higher post. 4. That cannot still avail to the petitioner to seek any mandamus. There involves no right to a post for a person that seeks for compassionate appointment. So long as the appointment to the existing post not in any way C.W.P. No.21446 of 2008 -3- disturbed, the petitioner is not entitled to approach the Court for any redress of an imaginary right. 4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 22, 2008 Pankaj*