AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the
order passed by 1st respondent declining the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
The reasons given for rejection of compassionate appointment by 1st respondent is that the petitioner had a elder brother who was eligible for
appointment but has not applied and therefore the request of petitioner cannot be considered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending, that the reasons given in the impugned order are not sustainable in law, in view of the
affidavit filed by elder brother that he was not interested in job. The case of the petitioner could not be rejected on the ground taken in the
impugned order but at the same time it has to be seen whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief.
The pleaded facts show that the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. The petitioner is one of the six family members, his
father died while working as Secondary Grade Teacher in the Government School on 01.10.1983.
The case of the petitioner is that even before the death of father of the petitioner the elder brother got married and was living separately with his
wife and was not dependent on his father for his livelyhood.
The petitioner was aged 10 years at the time of death of his father. The case of the petitioner is that the second brother of the petitioner after
being employed got married were not supporting the family.
Therefore the petitioner filed application for appointment on compassionate ground in the year 1999 on becoming eligible for the post. Thr
averments made in the petition itself shows that the application for appointment was made 16 years after the death of the father of the petitioner, as
the petitioner was only 10 years at the time of death of his father.
It is now well settled law that compassionate appointment is not another source of reservation and is only a mean to tide over difficult situation.
The petitioner cannot claim reservation of post in the Government service on ground of compassionate appointment. This kpr view find support
from judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir,
The petitioner therefore has no right to claim compassionate appointment thus no useful purpose would be served remitting the case back for
the reconsideration for grant of appointment as it is settled law that writ court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India need not quash an order if it gives rise to another illegal order, 2008 (1) SCT 267 (Shakur Basti Shamshan Bhumi Sudhar Samiti (Regd) vs.
Lt. Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.)
No merits. Dismissed. No costs.