H§§H SGU£T $F CHH§??§$GARH: 3ILA$PUR Writ Pe‘iiiicm Na. S38 of 23$5 Peiitionez' Padma Lochan Chauti‘nari, aged about 21 yeam‘, SIG. Late Deenanath Ch‘audhary, Ric. V§i§age Bayang, Post Kachhar, Via -— Bhwdevpur, RS. Khars§ya, DiStrict Raigarh (CG). Versus Resammients ’i) The Staie of Chhaitisaarh through the Secretary, Department Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur {CG} 2‘; Disifict Eciasation 0:“ficen Raigarh, Disfi. i-‘Eaigarh (CG). 3) 8%0ck Educa§§on Of§icer, Raigarh, Disirict Raigafh (CG}. £1: The State sf Madhya Pfadesh ihrough Secg'etary, DepaHment of Ec§ucation Veiiabh Bhawan. Ehwai {MP}. a; Union of indie imeugh vSeCfetai'y, 3epertmen€ of Personnel and Training, New De§hi. (Wavit Petiiiom Linda Artide 122$;‘227 of the Ccnstiiuiion of inda} 58: §-§<m’b§e WEE". $aiish K. Agnieoia’i, ‘J. Present Shri Rater: ?usii, Advocaie fwihe eeiitiener. Shfi Y.$. Thakur, Deputy Advocate Genefag with $hri Rekesh Jha, Advocate fo.’ the Siate. CRAL OR§ER i?assed era ims i6m day cf February, 2mg) The ease of the neiitioner is that the fame? o? the eeiii‘sona names‘y Deenanath Chaudhery working as Assistani’ Teachef m Gavemmem P?§mary Scheoi, Bax/am, District Raiqarhv d§ed an 8-1-1E8Q {Annexure PB) m harness. The petitionef be§ng minw i.e., f§ve yeare ax thai point 0f time, ceuid not make an appEce‘kion for appointment en compassienaie basis. Hewever, the petitioner on e§ta§ning the age 0f major§iy maee an appi§ca§an on 22—8-2632 fm' appeintment en compassionai’e basis m1 the grouhd ihet the petihoner has he , m -(g, seurces cf income and financiai concii‘zion of Ms famiiy is pathetic, but the said apmication was rejecied on the ground that the father of the petitioner dieé nrior to 1—”; 1-2300. 2) Mr. Ratan Pusti. Learned counsei appearmg fer ihe petitEoner submits thai ihe reieci§ori of the appiica‘don of the petiiianer is noi m accordance with. iaw. The petitioner has made an ae'eiicaiion immediateiy fer compaesionaie appoiniment an attaining the age cf maioyiiy. but the responden't authorities have not consideied ihe appiicaticn fiied by the petiiicner on campassieaaie basis. 3) Be “that as it may, it is weii sefiied ii‘aai compassionate greunci is mt a meihod of reofuitmeni. bui is a faciiiiv to provide for immediaie rehabiii’ta‘tion of éhe famiiy ih distiess foi reiieving the deeendent famiiy members of the deceased empioyee fiom desiiiution. in oihei’ words, the objeoi of compassionate appointment is to enabie oeaurious famiiy to iide over the sudden finarlciai oasis and is not to provioe empioyment. it is aiso weli se‘ttied that mete death of the empioyee does not entitie his famiiy to oiaim oomoassionate aooointment if the famiiv members oooid sustaio themselves financiaiiv from other sources of income. 4 it is weii settied teat the aopointment on compassionate groom A is note 4)) method oi recruitment, but, is a faciiity to ptovio'e for immediate te‘nabiiitalion e e oi 5 the family in distress for teiieving the dependent iamiiy membets oi {he deceaseti empioyee from destitution. in o‘tnet words, tiie object oi“ compassionate appointment is to ena‘bie penurious famiiy to tide ove: the sudden financiai crisis and is not to provide employment. it is aiso weii settieoi that mere death of the empioyee does not entitie his famiiy to claim compassionate apoointment if the famiiy members couioi sustain themseives financialiv from other sources of income. ) 3) in the matter of $tete of Menipur vs. Md. Rejaaein2 the Sumeme Court, aftef having heard various cases on compassionate appoiniment, observed as under: 5) m Hag/aria Sfate Electricity Board aavd anather vs. Hakim Singh7 the Supreme Court heid mat ”ihe whom objeci of ahy co‘mpassionaie appomtmeni schemes §s i0 give succor to the famiiy i0 tide over the sudden firiancia.‘ crisis befalien ihe dependenis an account of the untimeiy demise of é‘zs soie earning members.” 1% “1 1. in Smi Sushma Gosain end Ors. v. Unien of indie and GrS. {1%9 {4) SCC 468) it was obsewed that in a” dams of appomtment on cempasekanate greunds, ’there shomd not be any deiay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointments on compassionate gromd is ta mitigeie the harcis’nie due i0 cieeth of the bread—earner in the femiiv. Such appointments enouirj, therefore, be provided immeéieteiy to redeem tine famii‘l in disiress. The fact ‘ii‘iat Eire were was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, uniess the scheme itseif envisage speciiiceiiy otherwise, io stare the? as enci when such minor becomes a meior he can be appeinted Without any time coneoiousnese or iimii. The above view was reiiereted in Phoeiweii i’Smi.) v. Union of indie and“ ore. (199i Supp {2} SCC 589) and Union cf Indie and ore. v. Bhegwen Singh {i9§5 {6) SCC 476}. in Direcior of Educafion {Secondary} and Am: v. Pushpendre Kamer and Gr's. {$98 (5) 3C6 4Q2} ii was observed ina’i in matter of compassionate appointmeni there eannet be insistence fer a particuiar post. On: ef pereiv humaniiarian consideration and having regard to the feet that uniess some source oi iiveiihood is provided iiie famiiy wouid not be abie to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants oi the deceased who may be eiigibie for appoinirnent. Care has, however, to be taken rhai provision for ground of oomoassionate employment which is in the naiure oi an exceriiion to r'ne geaerai provisions does not unduiy inreriere wirh ‘r‘ne right of those other persons who are eiigibie for apoointment to seek appointment against ihe post which wouid have been avaiiabie! but for the provision enabling apooinimen’r being made on compassionate grounos of the dependant of the deceased empioyee. As it is in the nature of exception to the genera! provisions it cannot su’osiitu‘re the provision io which it is an 8 SCCI 85 ‘03 SCW' 433§ 7) exception and thereby nuiih’y ihe main provision by taking away compieta!y the right ccnferred by the main prowswn“ .. 11 ii is that such an appcintmeni is an exceptien to the general ruie. NwmaHy, ah emp§oyment in €he Government er other pubiSc seciors should be epen i0 ai§ eiigibb candidates who can some forward t9 appiy and campie‘te with each ether. it is m conecnance wEth Artic§e ’14 of the Cons‘diution. Cm The ”oasis of competitive merits. an appemtment shedd net be depaaee‘ fwm except where comperimg circumetances demanci, such as, deaih of the seie bread winner; the famiiy survived and the famiiy sufferieg because cf the seiback. Once it is provea' that irisptte of the death of the breadwtnner, the famiiy survived and eubstantiat peried is over, there is he necessity t0 say “goodbye” to the normat ruie of appointment and to shew favcur t9 one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Atticie 14 of the Constitution.” 8) Appiying weii settied principie of iaw to the facts oi the case, when father of the petitioner died on 8-1-1989 and the dependent iamiiy members of the deceased employee had survived for a iong period since 1989 tiii date, at this time, granting appointment on compassionate basis wouid defeat the very purpose of compassionate appointment. 9) in View of the foregoing, there is no merit in this case. The petition is aocordingiy dismissed summarity. No order asto costs. v Satish K. Agniimtri ' Judge The Supreme Court in the case of State ofJ & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mira, in oara 1‘; has heio‘ as under; 2066 (5‘; soc 7w