S.S Nijjar, J.:— The petitioner claims appointment in the High Court on the post of Clerk/Restorer or any other suitable Class III post. It is, not disputed that the father of the petitioner died on 28.1.1985 The mother of the petitioner remarried in the year 1989. The father of the petitioner had only three years of service at the time of his demise as he had been employed as a Clerk in the year 1982. The petitioner with the support of her grand parents passed the matriculation examination in March, 1998. She also passed 12th class examination in March 2000. Her grand mother expired on 11.6.2001 Even the grand father expired on 22.11.2001
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that these extreme circumstances prompted the petitioner to seek appointment in the High Court on compassionate ground. To this end, she made representation to the Registrar of the High Court on 22.2.2001 Counsel for the petitioner has based his claim for compassionate appointment on the instructions issued by the State of Punjab on 25.8.2000
3. These instructions provide that the dependants of Government servants who have been, killed by terrorists/employees who died while serving, who were not able to submit their applications within stipulated time may be granted one more opportunity to make the application within six months of the issuance of the instructions.
4. We are of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the purview of these instructions. In any event, these instructions can be of no assistance to the petitioner as the High Court has not adopted the same. In fact, a specific order has been passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 20.4.2001 holding that it is necessary for the High Court to adopt these instructions and were ordered to be filed.
5. The respondents have filed the reply. They have denied the claim put forward by the petitioner. He also relies the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.L.P (C) No. 10504 of 1993 in support of the plea that the father of the petitioner having died in the year 1985, the benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be given to the petitioner. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court shows that it has been clearly laid down that as a rule, appointment in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open merit by invitation of applications through public advertisements or other suitable modes. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. The compassionate appointment is provided as an exception to the aforesaid general rule. These appointments, are granted out of pure humanitarian considerations.
6. Taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, the provision is made in the rules as an exception to the general rules. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. Mere death of employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood.
7. When the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submitted that exception has been made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gurdarshan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) RSJ 557. In fact the aforesaid judgment is of no assistance to the petitioner. In paragraphs 17 and 18; of the judgment it is observed as follows:—
17. Having thoughtfully considered the rival contentions, we are in agreement with the learned Deputy Advocate General that the petitioner cannot claim that the delay in making of the application should be ignored because he was minor at the time of the demise of his father. If the petitioner was ineligible for compassionate appointment, his mother could have applied for being appointed as a Class III or Class IV servant and her mother could have applied for being appointed as a Class III or Class IV servant and her application would have been decided keeping in view her qualifications. In our opinion, the petitioner and/or his mother were not entitled to seek reservation of one post on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for compassionate appointment in the year 1987 or 1988. We are firmly of the view that there cannot be any reservation of posts for providing compassionate appointment to a minor dependent of the deceased employee. Such reservation of post is unknown to the recruitment rules and the policy instructions. Only in an exceptional case the government may consider the case of a minor for compassionate appointment on his attaining majority if no other dependent of the deceased employee is available for such appointment. In that case also the government will have to examine the financial status of the family before deciding the claim for compassionate appointment.
18. So far as this case is concerned the petitioner has failed to show as to why the widow of late S. Bihar Singh could not apply for compassionate appointment. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the decision taken by the respondent No. 3 to reject his application for compassionate appointment.”
8. The aforesaid observations fully support the objections raised by the respondents. Apart from this, the petitioner having survived for a period of 18 years after the death of her father cannot be said to be in such a situation where appointment sought to be granted to her on compassionate grounds.
9. We find that no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. Dismissed. No order as to costs.
10. Petition dismissed.
Comments