K. Yoganandh vs The General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank and The Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Bramanadhesam Branch

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to provide the petitioner any of the appointment on compassionate ground in

the respondent/Bank immediately and safeguard the family of the deceased employee from distress condition.

The facts in a nutshell are that the father of the petitioner, was working as a Cashier in the second respondent/Bank. He died on 1.8.1999 in a

road accident. It appears that the petitioner''s mother applied on 7.3.2000 for getting an appointment for the petitioner herein on compassionate

ground, and admittedly, as on that date the petitioner was writing only +2 examination. According to the petitioner, on 21.8.2000, the second

respondent/Bank conveyed its decision to the petitioner that his request could not be acceded to and no appointment could be given. The

petitioner thereafter completed B.B.M. Degree and had again sent application to the respondent/Bank on 14.5.2004 seeking appointment on

compassionate ground. As no orders were passed on such application, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

The father of the petitioner died on 1.8.1999, the application was made by the petitioner''s mother on 7.3.2000. It is a fact that on 21.8.2000,

the respondent/Bank took a decision not to give appointment to the applicant on compassionate ground. From the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it

is clear that the petitioner had knowledge about rejection of his application in 2000 itself. Nothing was done by the petitioner against the said

decision. Considerable period elapsed and only in 2004, after completing B.B.M. Degree he again submitted a representation for compassionate

appointment and as no orders were passed he filed the present writ petition.

It is well settled in law vide State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, that, 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 not

be 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 of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is

no necessity to say ""goodbye"" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the

mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.

In State of Haryana and Others Vs. Rani Devi and Another, it was held that the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground

is based on the premise that he was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or

16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered reasonable as also allowable on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of the

employee who had served the State and died while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue

such administrative instructions which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a

matter of right.

In the instant case, even though the petitioner had knowledge about rejection of his application dated 7.3.2000 by the proceedings of the

respondent/Bank dated 21.8.2000, he had not chosen to challenge the said decision and only after completing B.B.M. Degree he again submitted

a representation for compassionate appointment on 14.5.2004. The delay of four years in submitting a fresh application seeking compassionate

appointment shows that the family survived in spite of the death of the employee. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion, that

there is no necessity to say ""goodbye"" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others

ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 5890 of 2006 is closed.