AF/? o •^ q/~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 6842 of2007 PETITIONER Sunil Kiunar Patel, aged about 19 years, S/o late Shri Salieb Lal Patel, Caste-Marar (OBC), R/o village Tarda, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba (CG). RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh thi-ough its Secretary, Department of School Education, DKS Bhawan, Raipiir (CG). 2. Disti-ict Educatioa Officer, Biock Pandariya, District Kabii-dham (Kawardha) (CG). 3. Block Education Oflicer, Block Pandariya, District Kabii'dham (Kawardha) (CG). (WRIT PETITION LTSIDER ARIICLE 226 OF THE CONSTinjnON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satisfa K. Asmhotri. J.) Shri Ashok Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri Araa Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. -th 2&~8ay ol'February, 2009) Witti the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing fnially. 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits tliat the father ofthe t petitioner namely late Sliri Saheb Lal Patel, while working as Assistant Teacher in Govennnent Prhnary School, Palansari, Block Pandariya, District Kawardha, died in hamess on 22.06.1993. The petitioner was minor at that point oftime. Accordingly, fiie petitioner made an application for graiitofcompassionate appointmetit on attainingthe age ofmajority on 20.01.2007 (Annexure P/l) andthe same is still pending. Leamed counsel fartfaer submits tiiat fhere was ao restriction that the application has to be made within the prescribed stipulated period on the deafh. of the deceased employee. Even otherwise, the petitioner was not major at that point of S-6-Z--^ time, and as such the petitioner has a legal right on account of compassionate policyto be considered in the year 2007. Per contra, ieamed counsel appearing for the State submits tliat the State of Chhattisgarh was can'ed out 011 01.11.2000 pursuant to provisions ofM.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. He farther submits that as per the instpjcdon coatained in clause 3(12) ofthe circular dated 10 June, 2003 aad as per clause 3(12) 6 ofthe ameaded Rule 2 ofthe circular dated 23 July, 2003, issued by fhe General Administration Department, there is no provision tbr providina compassionate appointment to the petitioner after a period of three years ofthe death ofthe employee (father ofthe petitioner). The State govemment has also taken a decision not to consider fliose cases whereiii the goveniment employee has died before 01.11.1997. The said circular is approved by this Court. In the present case, father ofthe petitioner died on 22.06.1993. Thus, the applicatioa is evea otherwise not inamtainable. It is well settled that the appointmetit on compassionate ground is not a method of recfuitment, but, is a facility to provide for inunediate rehabilitation of the faniily in distress for relieving the dependent family membei-s of the deceased employee fi-om destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden linancial crisis and is not to provide employment. It is also well settled that mere death ofthe employee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themselves financialSy from other sources ofincome. In Haryana State Electricity Board and another vs. Hakim Singh the Supreme Court held that "tfae whole object of any eompassionate appoiiitinent schemes is to eive succor to the family to tide over the suddeii (1997) 8 SCC 85 ..-sa-is-S::.^- K! (43) financial crisis befallen the dependents on account ofthe untimely demise ofits sole eaniing members." 5. The Supreine Court in fhe case of State of'J&K and others Vs. Sajad AhmedMir^, m para 11 has held as under: "11.......it is that such an appointmeiit is an exception to the ^eneral rule. Nomially, an employment in the Govemment or other public sectors should be open to all eligible caadidates who can come forward to apply and complete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 ofthe Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should not be departed Irom except where compellmg circumstances demand, such as, death of fhe sole bread wimler, tlie family survived and the family sufferine because of the setback. Once it is proved that mspite ofthe deatli offlie breadwinnei-, the farnily survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show lavour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ienorinethe mandate ofArticle 14 ofthe Constitution." 6. In view oflhe above well settied principles oflaw, applying to the facts of the case on hand, the petitioner does not deserve any relief. There is no merit in this petition. The petition is accordingly disimssed. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- Sarish K.Agnihotri Judge 2006 (5) SCC 766