^ F^ ;<?s- ?tctt ^ ^ 'p"^ sAKM; yiLASfUK Writ Petltion (ss No. 1964 of 200; Petitloner K8SPGHC3@H:CS Ku. Usha Kiran Mahobia, aae 20 years, Daughter of Shri R.K, Mahobia, R/o. Near Sharda Mandir, Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir, »«0 Versus State of M.P. throuah the <;Ar:r-^it^^T h^ini%trt.i nf c;fthnAI Os,?^ii SLgS.l V . iVJH liS'l.? y V^ •C'Lri ^Wi baucation, vaiia&n ynawsn, tsnooai. District Educalion Officer, .ianin'r nict Janinir MP ^Js^i 'jy^ , L^i£?i.. ud; ;jyu , ^vpr'. The Collector, Janigir, District Janiglr, MP. (Writ Petition undsr Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of india) i ^^ dSi^ig^^ 3 ^ ? •<"^4t^-p1*-."^ '^^ y.^'^ s^^^ ^ ^ fw^^^f f^^^-* '^^ Mon'ois son ^JLISUCS ^BA.ISP. f'^ AsiniHoir l4^ff-^ ^ff A,I^'1^^^~'.T~.A?''; ^rAia^riT' snri ueepaK Jain, counsei Tor ine pstitionsr Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Aovocate for res&ondents No. 1 snd 2.3tate. >CS ^^&mn? assed on 4"° May, 2007) Ths petitioner was grantsd compassionats appointrnsnt on the oost of Assistant Teachsr. vide order dated 8-1-19S8 (Annexure A/1) on account of death of her mother namely Smt. Pramiia MshobJa. who died on 28-4-1995 In harness, while working ss Assistant Teac"er. Thereafter, vide order dated 17-3-1998 (Annexure A/3), her appomtment was canceSIed in view of the fact that the Gov.srnrnent vide order dated ^ 20-1-98 (Annexure A/4) decided not to aoooint anv person on compassionate basis after 1-1-1S98. ltS-;ncE£ai^t(Lf---. ,x -z - 2) The State/respondents subsequently considered the case of the petitioner and appointed her as Shiksha Karmi, Grade (II vide order dated 19-2-1999 (Annexure A/6). 3) Learned cqunsei for the petitioner impugns the order dated 17-3- 1998 (Annexure A/3) on the ground that by subsequent order, the appointment made earlier cannot be cancelied. 4) In t^factsofthe case, when the appeintment of the petitioner itself was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of empioyment, the petitionercannotchalienge the order dated 17-3-1998 (Annexure A/3) whereby her appointment was canceiled on compassionate basis which has been held by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court ihat the compassionate appointment is not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of emptoyment and is a back- door entry. However, keeping in view the fact that it was a facility granted to the femity members of the deceased employee, the petitioner was thereafter offered appointment on the post of.Shiksha Karmi Grade 5) Thus, atthis stage, the grievance of the petitioner even otherwise, does not survive as the petitioner has refused the appointment oh Shiksha Karmi Grade III on compassionate basis. 6) The petitioner has eariier filed Miscetianeous Appiication No.44/98 in the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Raipur Bench, for the same relief seeking clear instructionsto the respondentsto appoint her as Assistant Teacher and to quash the order whereunder the appointment was cancelied. The Tribunal after having considered the case hetd that the petition was premature in view of the fact that the order for fresh appointment was made granted liberty to the petitionento file a fresh petition, if the applicant is not satisfied or aggrieved agaitlst thesaidorder.videorderdated 16-7-T999 (AnrisxureA/7) i J^—- -2> ».-; 7) It is weli settied thateompassionate ground is not 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. !n other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enabie penurious family to Side over the sudden fihanfijal crisisand is not to provide empioyment. It is alsowell settled that mere death of the employee does not entitle his family to claim cpmpassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themselves financially from other sources of income. 8). The Supreme Court in State of J.&K and othere Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir,{2006) 5 SCC 7S6; after having considered all the aspects of compassionate appointment, in para 11 observed as under: "11.......It is that such an appointment is an exception to the general ruie. Normaiiy, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to ail eligible candidates who can come forward to app!y and eompete with each other. It is in consonancewith Artide 14 of the Constitutjon. On the basis Of competitive merits, onappointment should be | made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except whsre competling I circumstances demand, such as, death of the so!e breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Qnce it is proved that in spite of the death of tbe breadwinner, the famiiy survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "gobdbye" tothe normat rule ofappointment and to-show favour to one at the cost of the interests ofseyeral others ignoring ithe mandate ef Artjcte 14 of the Constitutiori." —.-i- ^^^F^-:'^ t 't:VW?sc"W .'K^::;l""S'»;EKiriS®i!(;:; :-^:-:- 9). it is thusclear from the ciecision cited above that the petitioner canhotctaimcQmpassionate appQintment as a right of inheritance. ' • •'. ': i- 10).lnyiewcftheaboxesett|edprincip]esoflaw,thereisr)oineritin this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as fe costs. 1—1-