IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAPUR r LHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION No. T &g7e £2004 PETITIONER , Kashif Mohammed, son‘ of Late f ' 'Shri Noor Mohammed & Late ' -Smt Safina Farhat aged about 22’ years R/o Panarapara Jagdalpur Dlstt Bastar(CG) VERSUS 1. 1 Union of India, through RESPONDENTs the Secretary, ministry‘ of Personnel Public Grievances and Penswn (State Reorgamzatnon),r 7 3r Floor Lok Nayak Bhawan, ' Khan Market, New Delhi. State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Department of ' General Administration, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ralpur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary Department of Urban Development, Mantralay, g D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ‘ Director, Urban Administration, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Deputy Director, Urban Administration, Raipur, v Chhattisgarh. Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) State of Madhya Pradesh, through ‘ the Secretary, Department of Urban Development Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal (M P ) up RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22%32; THE CONSTITUTION OF IINDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS‘ PBOHIBITION AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS ORDER OR ORDERS DIRECTION OR DIRECTION w ‘‘ ; fW S 4 F/§ 1 : Ka3hif Mohammad vetsU$ ' Unon of ind§a an others i d : Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, counsei for he petitier. Ms. Sharma Singhai, counse! f9! responden No.1. ii t Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for i'ne State of ChhatiSgarh/respondents No.2 to 5. Mr. A.S.Kachhawaha, counsel for re$pondent No.6. None aears for respondent No.7. (Passed on 22"“ Day of Febary, 2667) By this petition, the petitioner has sought for a wrt in the i nature of certiori, chaiienging e vaiidity of the order dat 106-2003 ar th ed (P40) and further a direction to appoint the petitioner on compassionate basis. 2. he father of the petitioner, nameiy, Late Shri‘ Noor T Mohammed died white working a Loer Division Cierk in t office of s w he the Munictpai Coroo etion Jagdaipur in harness The father of the petitioner died way back {learned oounsei appearing to; the petitioner is not in position to give the exact date of death of Late Shri Noor Mohammed). On‘his death. mother of the petitioner, nameiy, Smt. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Q? 3INGLE EENCH HON BLE MR SATISH K AGNIHQTRI, J WRIT PETITION NO.487G OF 2am!- Petiiioner Responcfents Present i on t pp ORaER ru Safina Farhat was granted appointment on the post of Revenue Moharrir on compassionate baeis. She aiso died on 6-7-1 997. Afte¥ her death, second wife of the deceased - father, i.e., step-mother of the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment. 0n reject§on of her appiication, a writ petition, being Writ Petition No.2987 of 1999, was tiied in this Court. This Court, vide omier dated 10-9-2001 (P-S), dismissed the petition as withdrawn with an observation that the order of the withdrawai of the petition wouid not stand in the way of consideration of the case of the son of the writ petitioner. The present petitioner is son of the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.2987 of 1999. The State Government rejected the application of the petitioner, which is impugned herein. I 3. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that r the petitioner has made an appiioation for compassionate appointment on the ground of being dependent onmother Late Smt. Satina Farhat, who was appointed as Revenue Moharrir on compassionate basis on the death of her husband, who happened to be father of the petitioner. a 4. Now the question arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the mother of the petitioner, who was appointed on compassionate basis on the death of the deceased - husband, has right to the post. 5. it is weii settled that compassionate appointment is not in accordance with the constitutionat scheme of empioyment and this is back door entry. 3 @ 5. The Hon‘bie Supreme Court, in Haryana State Electricity guard and maths! v3. Hakim Singk‘, heid as under :- “8. The rule of appointments to pubiic service is that they shouid be on merits and through open invimtion. it is the normal route thtough which one can get into a pubhe employment. However, as every ruse can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said ruie also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one such exception relief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependants in a vacancy. The obiect is to give succor to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury d’ue to the untimely death of its sole breadwinner. This Court has observed time and again that the object of providing Such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment." “12. ............... it appears that the High Court woutd have treated the provision as a lien created by the Board for a dependant of the deceased employee. lf the family members of the deceased employee can manage for fourteen years after his death one of his legal heirs cannot put forward a claim as though it is a line of succession by virtue of a right of inheritance. The object of the provisions shouid not be forgotten that it is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden t’mancial crisis befallen the dependants on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member.“ 4 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State 9f J&K and others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mirz, held as unde! :- “11. .......... it i5 that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normaliy, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. it is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public emce. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand. such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner. the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say “goodbye” to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.“ “1 2. in State of Haryana v. Rani Devi‘ it was held that the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered reasonable as also ailowable on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of the employee who had served the state and died while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative instructions which can stand the test of Articies 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right” 8. 3t is thus dear from the decisions cited above that the petitioner cannot ciaim compassionate appointment by virtue of a right of inheritance. Even otherwise, since the appointment of his mother itseif was unconstitutionai and she has no tight to the post, further appointment on compassionate basis would be illegai and unconstitutionai. 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 1 (1 997) 8 SCC 85 2 (2006) 5 SOC 766 Gopai ‘ A41 . M