AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Despite opportunities respondents 1 to 3 have not filed objections/reply. Respondent No.4 has filed reply.
The matter has been taken up finally in absence of reply of Respondents 1 to 3, on consensual submissions of the parties. Heard. Considered.
Admitted.
The petitioner's case is that his father, Ali Mohammad Wani, was class IV employee of Education Department serving in Higher Secondary
School Sumbal at the time of his death on 1741981. The deceased left behind widow and son, the petitioner. The petitioner applied for the post in
February, 94 (AnnexurePl), through Respondent No.4, Principal Higher Secondary School, Sumbal, who forwarded his case to Respondent No.3
Chief Education Officer, Baramulla. The petitioner, as required by rules collected the required documents and certificates including Annexure P3,
and submitted same before the Respondents 2 and 3. The respondents have slept over the matter and are not taking decision thereto. The
petitioner's right of appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of Rules and regulations is not being upheld. Though so many other persons
have been appointed on compassionate grounds, the petitioner has been singled out and is being refused the appointment, notwithstanding, that so
many vacancies are available with the respondents. On these pleaded grounds petitioner is seeking appointment as Class IV on
compassionate grounds.
Respondent No.4, Principal Higher Secondary School, Sumbal, has in reply admitted mat the father of the petitioner was working as Class IV
(Peon) in the School, at the time of his death on 17041981. The petitioner approached the Respondents only in 1994 for compassionate
appointment grounded on death of his father. The petitioner's case was forwarded through proper channel to competent authority for orders. The
petitioner's case is belated and time barred. No fundamental or other rights of the petitioner are violated. The petitioner's case is not covered by
SRO 43 or SRO 194. Petitioner's father has died in April 1981, as such his case is not covered by SRO 43 or the rules for appointment on
compassionate grounds. As per his own showing, the age of the petitioner on the death of his father was just eight years. Therefore, the case of the
petitioner is not based on merits. It is for Respondent No.2, Director School Education, to take decision thereto. Petition is prayed to be
dismissed.
It is more than made out that AH Mohammad Wani, peon in Higher Secondary, School, Sumbal, in whose vacancy the petitioner is seeking
appointment on compassionate grounds, died in the month of April, 1981. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in
Feb. 1994 and the present writ petition has been filed in July, 1997. The compassionate appointment sought is belated and claim is put forth
thereto after a lapse of over around 13 years. It is also to be seen from record that at the time of death of Ali Mohammad, the age of Farooq
Ahmed Wani (Petitioner) has been just around eight years. Obviously, he was not eligible for appointment against the post which fell vacant due to
death of his father. Not only so, the rules providing for appointment on compassionate grounds, including SRO 43 of 1994 and earlier thereto the
rules of 1989, do not in terms cover the case of the petitioner.
In 1994 AIR SCW 2305, it has been observed that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be made after lapse of reasonable period in
so for as claim to such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.
In AIR 1994:SCW: 1947 :SCW: 1947, The Apex court again disapproved the practice of High courts and Administrative Tribunals to give
directions on sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect of appointments
on compassionate grounds do not cover and contemplate such appointments at relevant time.
The appointment on compassionate grounds is not in the nature of an appointment as a matter of statutory right of appointee, but is a concession
granted by the State Government to a dependant of its employee who dies in harness with a view to tied over the extreme hardship of the indigent
family in fit case.
With the result and for the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed. However, it merits to be taken note of that apart from ordering
appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of provisions of statutory rules and orders, the Government is not helpless to order appointment in
a fit case. If the Government finds a case fit and deems it appropriate in that particular case to appoint a person on compassionate grounds, it is
free to do so, of course, within parameters of law.