^F^ HIGHCOURTOFCHHATnSGARH.BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon'bleShriSunil Kumar Sinha. J. ADDellant Respondents Writ Appeal No. 11 8 of 2007 Ku. Usha Kiran Mahobiya, D/o Shri R.K. Mahobiya, Aged about 27 years, R/o Near Sharda Mandir, Janjgir, Dist : Janjgir- Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Ministry of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Dist: Raipur- (C.G.) 2. The District Education Officer, Janjgir, Dist : Janjgir Champa- 3. The Gollector, Janjgir Champa- ^ IWritADDealsunderSectiohZSub-SectiontDoftheChhattisaarh Hjgh Gourt(ADDealt6DivisionBench)Act.2006) ApDearance: Mr. P. Diwakar, Senior Advocate with Shri Deepak Jain, counsel for theappellant Mr.Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State/ respondents. ^ JUDGMENT (20.03.2009) Following judgmentof the Court was delivered- by Sunil KumarSinha. J. ii. :i (1) Beingaggrieved with the order dated 4.5.2007 passed in yVrit Petition(8) No. 1964/2005 by the Learned SingleJudgeofthisCourt, the appellanVpetitionerhasfiledthisWritAppeal. WritApoeal No. 118 of2007 (2) The brief facts are the mother of the appellant namely Smt. Pramila Mahobiya diedin harness on 26.4.1995 while she was working on the post ofAssistant Teacher. Consequently, theappellantwas given eompassionateappointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, vide order dated 8.1.1998. By a subsequent order dated 17.3.1998, her appointmentwas cancelled because vide an order dated 20.1.1998, it was eirculated that the concerned Government has taken a policy decision not to appoint any person on the post ofAssistant Teachers, Teacher and Lecturers on compassionate basisafter 1.1.1998. This order dated 17.3.1998 was challenged by the appellant before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Raipur,which was registered as O.A. No. 256/98. The said O.A. was disposed of with-the direction for submitting an application/representatiQn to the Colleetor and District Panchayat fbr taking suitable action for the relief sought in the petition within one month from the date pf representation filed by the appellant/petitioner. It appears that thereafter, the representation was filed and the State/respondents subsequently considered thecase of the appellant and vide order dated 19.02.1999 appointedheras Shiksha Karmi Grade-TII on compassionate ground. The appellant did not join the servjces on the said post. ,(3) The appellant impugned the order dated 17.3.1998 onthe ground that byasubsequent order, the appointment made earlier cannot be cancelled. ? , (4) Learned Single Judge quoted the dbservation of the Supreme \Court that the compassionate appointment is not in accordance with the Writ Aooeal No. 11 8 of2007 constitutional ^cheme of employment and isa back-door entry. However, keeping in view the fact that it was a facility grahted to the family members of the deceased employee, the petitioner was thereafter offered appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III.It was further observed that the compassionate appointment is not a method of recruitment, but it is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependant family membersofthe deceased employee from destitution. The appellant cannot claim compassionate appointment as a right of inheritance. Observing all this, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant/petitioner was dismissed. (5) Mr. P. Diwakar, learned seniorcounsel appearing on behalfof the appellantargued that theeancellation of the earlier appointment order on the postof Assistant Teacher was not in accordance with law. He argued that when the appellantwas allowed to join as Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground, shewould have been allowed to continue on the said post. (6) On theother hand, Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learnedAddl. Advocate General, appearing on behalfof State, opposed these arguments. (7) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records of the case. t • • • ' .. (8) In the matter of Puniab National Bank andothers-Vs-Ashwlni Kumar Taneja. (2004} 7 SCC 265, the Apex Court held that the appointment on the compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement of makihg appojntments on open invitation of application on merits. Basic jntention -:r' EiJ"..i: i 1 liii!Li WritAopealNo. 118of2007 is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. TheApex Court further held in the matter of I.G. (Karmik) and others -Vs- Prahalad Mani Tripathi. (2007) 6 SCC 162 that the public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional schemecannot be given on descent. Whensuch an exception has been carved out by the Supreme Court, the same must be strictly complied with. The Apex Court said that the appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appoinfment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion. (9) In the matter of State ofJ & K and others -Vs- Saiad Ahmed Mir. (2006) 5 SCC 766, the Apex Court held that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, 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 office. This general rule should notbe 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 ofthe breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period isover, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour ^ Writ Ameal No. 118 of 2007 to one at the cost ofthe interests of severalothers ignoring the mandate ofArticle 14 ofthe Constitution. (10) Onthe above principles, it is clear that such appointments are given only for saving the family of the deceased employee. In the present case, firstly, the appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 8.1.1998. It appears that at that time, the policy decision taken by the State regarding not to appoint any person on compassionate basis on the post ofAssistant Teachers, Teachers and Lecturers after 1.1.1998, was not circulated as it was circulated on 20.1.1998. It is for this reason, the appellant was appointed vide order dated 8.1.1998. When the circular came into notice of the concerned authorities, the appointment was immediately cancelled and later on, as per directions of the State Administrative Tribunal, the case of the appellant was re-considered and she wasappointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-111 on the compassionate ground. Looking to the nature of appointment given to the appellant which was a compassionate appointment, we do not find any illegality in all this. The principles enunciated of the Supreme Gourt is that when the appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeksto achieve because the idea being not to provide for endless compassion. When the appellant did notjoin on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-111, in theyear 1999 and the family survived for about more than 10 years by now, the very purposeof providing compassionate appointment has absolutely ended by now and at this stage, we do not deem it appropriate to pass any order in favour of the appellant with relation to the grant pf compassionate appointment to her on account of death of hermother in ^.WWS-ET^S^?^ ,ff >r;,.':-££!i Writ Auceal No. 118 of2007 the year 1998. The view taken by thelearned Single Judge appears to the correct. (11) We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (12) There shall be no order as to cost. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- SuniiKumar Sinha &'